The Racism of the Modern Republican Party

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.
By BOB HERBERT

I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I’d really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades — a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate — with the enthusiastic support of President Bush — rose up on Tuesday and said: “No way, baby.”

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: “No way, baby.”

They won’t be there. They can’t be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they’re Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy — the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush — they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

“I believe in states’ rights,” said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan’s presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, “All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you.”

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It’s time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/o...72800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

The Clarence Thomas anecdote is a bit of a stretch (well, of course Bush would nominate a conservative), but otherwise, his accusations of racism via neglect are well made. Too often we think of "racism" as an idea that only pops up in Jena, Louisiana, or on the Don Imus show. Instead, it's good to see a mainstream writer talk about how racism can result from avoidance as well.
 
Everyone is racist. I've said it before.

As far as the DC vote goes, you honestly can't expect the Republicans to willingly allow another Democratic vote in the House, racism or not. It's not smart politics.

It's funny he mentions Republicans going after white people who hated the fact that black people could vote. Down here, we have another term for that - Democrats. Most Democrats from 1866- were simply white people with Republican-leaning thoughts who were too pissed off with Lincoln to call themselves Republicans. In fact, this has only changed within the last 40-50 years or so. 1948 was a key year, but many still held on after that. Strom Thurmond is the perfect example.

I'm not surprised someone from NYC has that wrong, but I am surprised someone from a major newspaper wouldn't bother with fact-checking.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Everyone is racist. I've said it before.[/quote]

Everyone has racist tendencies due to the way we're socialized. What is your point, though, in this regard? That Democrats are racist too? Sure. At least Democrats show up for debates.

As far as the DC vote goes, you honestly can't expect the Republicans to willingly allow another Democratic vote in the House, racism or not. It's not smart politics.

Yes. There's nothing like denying voting rights to American citizens. 'Twasn't Democrats, either, who were crucial in passing all those felon disenfranchisement laws (yet another bit of racism, due to the larger proportion of blacks it affected compared to whites).

It's funny he mentions Republicans going after white people who hated the fact that black people could vote. Down here, we have another term for that - Democrats. Most Democrats from 1866- were simply white people with Republican-leaning thoughts who were too pissed off with Lincoln to call themselves Republicans. In fact, this has only changed within the last 40-50 years or so. 1948 was a key year, but many still held on after that. Strom Thurmond is the perfect example.

I'm not surprised someone from NYC has that wrong, but I am surprised someone from a major newspaper wouldn't bother with fact-checking.

He's not wrong, but he's simply not going back half a century to artificially balance an op-ed. The only Dixiecrat that's left in this era is Zell Miller, so far as I can tell, and he's busy fighting with Joe Liberman to see who gets to ride Sean Hannity's jock next. As far as this complaint of yours, it's fascinating that you have to go back 50 years to even begin to paint a picture of Democrats as benefiting from anti-black ideology, and also to paint a picture of Republicans as unbiased and fair-minded. That's akin from claiming that Republicans are still conservatives because Barry Goldwater ran for president 40 years ago.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It's funny he mentions Republicans going after white people who hated the fact that black people could vote. Down here, we have another term for that - Democrats. Most Democrats from 1866- were simply white people with Republican-leaning thoughts who were too pissed off with Lincoln to call themselves Republicans. In fact, this has only changed within the last 40-50 years or so. 1948 was a key year, but many still held on after that. Strom Thurmond is the perfect example.

I'm not surprised someone from NYC has that wrong, but I am surprised someone from a major newspaper wouldn't bother with fact-checking.[/QUOTE]

Sheesh. I knew the "The Republicans aren't racist -- they freed the slaves!" argument was going to pop up, but second post? Damn.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']How so? I disagree with that statement.[/QUOTE]

Everyone has prejudices (and is, de facto, racist in that sense). Everyone makes racial attributions (beliefs about actions, attitudes, unique racial elements) based on race.

Hell, the fact that everyone recognizes race is an indicator of racism. What is race? A biological thing? Feh. If it's so biological, why does the idea of "race" shift over time? Why aren't Italians/Irish as despised as they once were? As recognizable as they once were? How often do you see a drunken man acting poorly and think "goddamned Scandinavians always getting drunk instead of taking care of their family?"

That we (for the most part) agree on racial boundaries (white/black/yellow/brown as the major categories, and each subgroup is a variant of those), which are collectively manipulated and decided upon. That, in itself, is enough to suggest we are all racist. We are all active participants in the maintenance and realignment of racial categories.

:lol: "middle easterners/muslims" are a new category. How different do you think they are? Latinos and hispanics have their own racial language based on skin color and ethnic background (I'm not a fuckin' Mexican, I'm Puerto Rican you dumb sonofabitch!).

Now, prejudice being the thought and racism being the act still makes most everyone racist. You can act racist by showing deference, and you can act racist by showing defiance. You can act racist without being aware of it as well, IMO.

Nevertheless, the only reason I think "everyone is racist" is a silly argument is because it suggests that, when noted, patterned racist activity should be left alone/ignored/not debated. It's a defeatist "oh, well, what are you gonna do?" statement delivered with a shrug.
 
Cochese, you said "Everyone is racist. I've said it before."

[quote name='GuilewasNK']How so? I disagree with that statement.[/quote]

I actually agree with that statment. Maybe a clearer statement is that everyone has racist feelings or tendencies.

Don't forget you dont have to say nigger or hang nooses to be a racist. A thought can be racist, avoiding someone can be racist, heck even not smiling back when a minority smiles at you can be racist.

Its a continuum, or spectrum ;) if you will.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Everyone has prejudices (and is, de facto, racist in that sense). Everyone makes racial attributions (beliefs about actions, attitudes, unique racial elements) based on race.

Hell, the fact that everyone recognizes race is an indicator of racism. What is race? A biological thing? Feh. If it's so biological, why does the idea of "race" shift over time? Why aren't Italians/Irish as despised as they once were? As recognizable as they once were? How often do you see a drunken man acting poorly and think "goddamned Scandinavians always getting drunk instead of taking care of their family?"

That we (for the most part) agree on racial boundaries (white/black/yellow/brown as the major categories, and each subgroup is a variant of those), which are collectively manipulated and decided upon. That, in itself, is enough to suggest we are all racist. We are all active participants in the maintenance and realignment of racial categories.

:lol: "middle easterners/muslims" are a new category. How different do you think they are? Latinos and hispanics have their own racial language based on skin color and ethnic background (I'm not a fuckin' Mexican, I'm Puerto Rican you dumb sonofabitch!).

Now, prejudice being the thought and racism being the act still makes most everyone racist. You can act racist by showing deference, and you can act racist by showing defiance. You can act racist without being aware of it as well, IMO.

Nevertheless, the only reason I think "everyone is racist" is a silly argument is because it suggests that, when noted, patterned racist activity should be left alone/ignored/not debated. It's a defeatist "oh, well, what are you gonna do?" statement delivered with a shrug.[/quote]

I was about to say something along those lines.

Plus, to say everyone is anything is illogical.

Prejudgement doesn't necessarily have to be soley based on race though. For example, if you take a population in Samoa with little to no outsiders, it is really difficult to apply the "everyone is racist" argument. Whatever pre-judgement occurs will be based on other factors. I feel that most prejudice is benign it that sense. Most of it is, "That person looks mean, lets steer clear." Or, "They look friendly, lets ask directions." That isn't to say some people don't still look at skin above anything else. I just think more people realize an asshole is an asshole and a good person is a good person regardless of age, race, etc. I just have to keep that positive outlook. It's one of the few things in this world that I try to view with idealism. Otherwise, I am a realist at heart.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']I just think more people realize an asshole is an asshole and a good person is a good person regardless of age, race, etc. I just have to keep that positive outlook. It's one of the few things in this world that I try to view with idealism. Otherwise, I am a realist at heart.[/quote]

I feel more at ease treating everyone the same. Why shouldn't I? I've got more important things to do than actively like/hate a particular group. That is why I treat it the other way around - everyone's an asshole until proven otherwise regardless of skin color, creed, age, religion, gender, or placement on the food chain. :lol:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Everyone has racist tendencies due to the way we're socialized. What is your point, though, in this regard? That Democrats are racist too? Sure. At least Democrats show up for debates.



Yes. There's nothing like denying voting rights to American citizens. 'Twasn't Democrats, either, who were crucial in passing all those felon disenfranchisement laws (yet another bit of racism, due to the larger proportion of blacks it affected compared to whites).



He's not wrong, but he's simply not going back half a century to artificially balance an op-ed. The only Dixiecrat that's left in this era is Zell Miller, so far as I can tell, and he's busy fighting with Joe Liberman to see who gets to ride Sean Hannity's jock next. As far as this complaint of yours, it's fascinating that you have to go back 50 years to even begin to paint a picture of Democrats as benefiting from anti-black ideology, and also to paint a picture of Republicans as unbiased and fair-minded. That's akin from claiming that Republicans are still conservatives because Barry Goldwater ran for president 40 years ago.[/QUOTE]

I'm merely pointing out the misnomer that Republicans are racist, and no one else can be. Which is the jist I get from the article. If anyone thinks any mainstream political party is for anything other than the majority vote, they're mistaken. Down here, everyone pretty much runs on the same platform. There really isn't much to distinguish the typical Democrat from the typical Republican, except for perhaps Cynthia McKinney and John Lewis. Now, is it because they are black that sets them apart, or is it just coincidence? I can't say. Our last major election, I wouldn't have been able to tell you which party someone was running of by looking at their campaign focus. Each canidate was for tighter borders, against illegal immigration, a 'friend of Charlie Norwood,' and supported our troops. This isn't a Republican thing, it's a white supremacist thing...and that's depressing. The author also convienently leaves out the white Republicans who support the bill, like Tom Davis.

I'm not saying denying people the right to representation is right. But politics is rarely, if ever, about right or wrong. One party doesn't want a further change in the spectrum. Politically, it makes sense to oppose it. I personally don't oppose it, they should have had a voting right years ago.

As far as my comment on racism, I stand by it. And when I say that, I mean everyone has racist tendencies. Everyone thinks something outside of the norm in a racist manner at some point in our lives. What makes most of us different than those who wear robes or burn crosses is that we don't let the internal become external.

Who hasn't been driving in their car and seen another driver do something, or a stereotype of some sort? You look at a bad driver and you think 'Bet it's a woman putting on makeup.' Sexism. A mid-80s Cutlass riding on 24's that looks absolutely retarded - you may think, 'Oh, that's a black dude for sure.' Racism. A van being used as a cab - Mexican. Racism. It exists in us all to some degree. I guess there's a difference between being racist and being racist. And I'm saying the former exists in us all to some degree.
 
the bill was co-sponsored by republican senator orrin hatch from utah, one of the most republican senators out there.

anyway, republicans are worried that 1 more congressional seat for democrats might eventually lead to 2 senator seats that would almost certainly be democratic. they already tried to make DC into a state, New Columbia, in the late 70s and early 80s which wasnt ratified by a majority of states. and to a certain extent i think it should be a state, after all its more populated that some states, if we are going to give them congressional seats, as congressional seats are supposed to be for states.

but on the other side, weve already give DC 3 electoral votes for the presidency as granted by the 23rd amendment. and it seems rather silly to grant them electoral votes, which are certain to be democrat and are supposed to represent the number of senators and house members, but not to allow a seat in congress or the senate.

really ive never given much thought on the matter, but i think if anything DC should just go all the way and try and become a state, not simply try and get a congressional vote.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I'm merely pointing out the misnomer that Republicans are racist, and no one else can be. [/QUOTE]

They call that replying to an argument no one made and I am certain that is a logical fallacy.

I would disagree with "everyone is racist" because even though many people have "racist" thoughts due to how they were raised they do not necessarily let it get in the way of their judgments or actions.
 
What a ridiculous article. With the exception of the correct assertion that a quota of one black on the Supreme Court, no more, no less is racist, I can't agree with anything the author writes.

Firstly, on the issue of a vote for DC, the author exhibits extreme ignorance of the issue in claiming that Democrats want to give the vote to blacks and Republicans want to deny them. This is just utterly false. This issue is all about party politics - Democrats want extra votes from an entity sure to elect a Democrat, while Republicans want to deny the extra votes.

As a DC-area resident, it pains me that my neighbors are denied a voice in the running of our country. On the other hand, some have wisely pointed out the reason that the District was created in the first place - to have the federal government outside of any state. Even the bill that was defeated only provided for a House vote for DC, denying District residents any voice in the Senate (judges, treaties, other nominations). Therefore, the non-political approach would be to give most of the District back to Maryland, keeping only non-populated areas as the remaining District (The Capitol, The White House, The Mall, etc.). The DC delegate would become a Maryland representative until reapportionment, and current DC residents would be then represented by Maryland senators as residents of Maryland.

Of course, such a common-sense proposal also runs into purely partisan political opposition. Republicans fear this plan would make Maryland basically unwinnable for them in statewide races. Democrats don't want to forego a chance of two extra senators if DC were made a state.

Next we have the ridiculous claim that Republican candidates snubbing the PBS debate means they don't care about issues of importance to blacks. First off, why are issues important to blacks not important to other Americans? That in itself is racist, to claim that issues Democratic candidates discussed in the earlier Smiley debate such as cocaine/crack are "black issues." Secondly, I don't think having debates geared to "issue groups" is a good idea at all since it promotes insipid pandering (Democrats duly obliged at the first Smiley debate, the AFL-CIO debate and the LOGO debate).
 
I have an idea. Lets forego all this silly "separation of church and state" business and just make the Federal Government a religion, then treat DC as its own soverign like the Vatican!

Problem solved.

(This way Dan Brown can write novels based entirely in DC!)
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I have an idea. Lets forego all this silly "separation of church and state" business and just make the Federal Government a religion, then treat DC as its own soverign like the Vatican!

Problem solved.

(This way Dan Brown can write novels based entirely in DC!)[/QUOTE]


or we could just get you to stop postin in the Vs forum, either or would be good
 
Yeah go post another poll there buddy. ...friends like these...

For those CAGers who dont know, the Ikohn and I are fraternity brothers. We are pledge brothers actually from Fall of 2000.
 
If anything the country favors blacks we give them extra scholarships, extra jobs, special perks for everything. Hell if you kill someone and its a black man the goverment kills ya twice!
 
Last I checked, the Republicans had minorities in very high cabinet positions (Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Attorney General just to name a few) so to accuse the Republican Party as a whole as racist is just silly.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Last I checked, the Republicans had minorities in very high cabinet positions (Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Attorney General just to name a few) so to accuse the Republican Party as a whole as racist is just silly.[/QUOTE]

Tokens.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Tokens.[/QUOTE]

What? The people in the cabinet of the man who trotted out his latino relatives to blatantly pander to that voting block might be there at least in part to diffuse accusations exactly like these? Never!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Tokens.[/QUOTE]

So please tell the names of any black joint chiefs of staff or secretaries of state that Democrats have appointed. Looking at Colin Powell's distinguished military record and Condelezza Rice's credentials as an academian and foreign policy expert, you could hardly call them "token" appointments. You may disagree with their politics but not even Democrats would consider them merely a "token" appointment. How about Jocelyn Elders as Surgeon General; now that's a token appointment.

No kidding they won't show up to "debate" black issues; regardless of what they say, they'll either be accused of being racist or simply paying lip service and being racist. Republicans are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Anyone else notice the word "had"?[/QUOTE]

Evidently the likes of Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez and Alphonso Jackson are persona non grata in your world.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What a ridiculous article. With the exception of the correct assertion that a quota of one black on the Supreme Court, no more, no less is racist, I can't agree with anything the author writes.[/QUOTE].
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What a ridiculous article. With the exception of the correct assertion that a quota of one black on the Supreme Court, no more, no less is racist, I can't agree with anything the author writes.

Firstly, on the issue of a vote for DC, the author exhibits extreme ignorance of the issue in claiming that Democrats want to give the vote to blacks and Republicans want to deny them. This is just utterly false. This issue is all about party politics - Democrats want extra votes from an entity sure to elect a Democrat, while Republicans want to deny the extra votes.

As a DC-area resident, it pains me that my neighbors are denied a voice in the running of our country. On the other hand, some have wisely pointed out the reason that the District was created in the first place - to have the federal government outside of any state. Even the bill that was defeated only provided for a House vote for DC, denying District residents any voice in the Senate (judges, treaties, other nominations). Therefore, the non-political approach would be to give most of the District back to Maryland, keeping only non-populated areas as the remaining District (The Capitol, The White House, The Mall, etc.). The DC delegate would become a Maryland representative until reapportionment, and current DC residents would be then represented by Maryland senators as residents of Maryland.

Of course, such a common-sense proposal also runs into purely partisan political opposition. Republicans fear this plan would make Maryland basically unwinnable for them in statewide races. Democrats don't want to forego a chance of two extra senators if DC were made a state.

Next we have the ridiculous claim that Republican candidates snubbing the PBS debate means they don't care about issues of importance to blacks. First off, why are issues important to blacks not important to other Americans? That in itself is racist, to claim that issues Democratic candidates discussed in the earlier Smiley debate such as cocaine/crack are "black issues." Secondly, I don't think having debates geared to "issue groups" is a good idea at all since it promotes insipid pandering (Democrats duly obliged at the first Smiley debate, the AFL-CIO debate and the LOGO debate).[/QUOTE]
100% agree. DC should have its land ceded back to Maryland and Virginia (probably more to Maryland) and then leave the non-populated areas as "non-state specific" land. That's it -- just as the founding father's intended. Then revoke the amendment giving 3 EVs to DC, considering the fact that people formally living in DC's electoral voice will now be heard in Maryland and Virginia.

Let's not even try to discuss the fact that adding two new voting members to Congress without a Constitutional amendment, especially to a non-state, is unconstitutional.
 
Does anybody know if (STILL) Republican Senator Larry Craig tried to solicit sex from a black male or a caucasion male?

I am just saying, if it were a black male undercover cop, this might go a long way to improve the misconception that republicans are racist.
 
The problem with the GOP and racism is the fact that it's easy for racists to cling on to the GOP's stance on affirmative action, DC voting rights, hate crimes, etc from a bigotted perspective instead of from the perspective that most informed voters would come about it. For example, I'm opposed to hate crime legislation mostly because I feel most crime is based in hate and the motive behind it should not dictate punishment -- murder is still murder whether you did it because you hated all people of one race or because you decided to randomly pick off strangers, either one is dispicable and should be treated as such. A jury of ones peers decides the extent of the punishment and will take motive into account...and very well should.

It's easy to cling to these issues with racially motivated reasons and, frankly, there are too many in the GOP who let those fears and that bigotry be used to their advantage come election day. It's odd in many ways considering that more minority voters, (black, latinos, etc), support bans on gay marriage and abortion than white voters...and yet the GOP never thinks to target these voters by appealing to the conservative values that they share...
 
[quote name='t0llenz']The problem with the GOP and racism is the fact that it's easy for racists to cling on to the GOP's stance on affirmative action, DC voting rights, hate crimes, etc from a bigotted perspective instead of from the perspective that most informed voters would come about it. For example, I'm opposed to hate crime legislation mostly because I feel most crime is based in hate and the motive behind it should not dictate punishment -- murder is still murder whether you did it because you hated all people of one race or because you decided to randomly pick off strangers, either one is dispicable and should be treated as such. A jury of ones peers decides the extent of the punishment and will take motive into account...and very well should.[/quote]

Yes, that's well and good, but to think that the only rational possibility is to be against hate crimes because of this oversimplified bumper sticker mentality that says "all crime is based in hate" (which, frankly, is incorrect at best, and complete and utter nonsense at worst), is just plain silly. There are AMPLE reasons, just as rational, to support hate crime laws (even the toothless ones!); there are ample reasons to support a shift in the FHA/FHAA and Affirmative Action laws so that people actually are punished for their bigoted acts.

It's easy to cling to these issues with racially motivated reasons and, frankly, there are too many in the GOP who let those fears and that bigotry be used to their advantage come election day. It's odd in many ways considering that more minority voters, (black, latinos, etc), support bans on gay marriage and abortion than white voters...and yet the GOP never thinks to target these voters by appealing to the conservative values that they share...

It's hard to get over the GOP stances on hate crimes laws, affirmative action policies, cultural hegemony, severe ethnocentrism, and others just to find that you agree with the GOP on some issues. That's no longer "hold your nose and voting," it's "voting for someone you vehemently disagree with."

I also would ask you to show supporting data that show minorities are more likely than whites to be anti gay marriage; since, of course, the various state amendments have shown that, with very few exceptions, most Americans are against gay marriage, then you'd have to have an immensely high proportion of minority groups be against it. Given the propensity of blacks and hispanics to be not only religious, but deeply/devoutly religious, though, there are supporting data on having conservative values with regard to abortion. Good for those groups that they aren't duped into being one-issue idiots like most pro-life voters, whose lazy asses gum up the polls when the never look at a single issue in their fuckin' LIFE except abortion.

Yes, yes, many of you want to disagree with what Bob Herbert is saying here; at the same time, though, you acknowledge two things: (1) the GOP is a predominantly white party, and they're having a hard time getting their message accepted by racial/ethnic minorities, and (2) the GOP needs to greatly refine or change their message in order to appeal to those minorities (IOW, the message/platforms themselves are racist).

So, you're really agreeing with Herbert's argument.
 
To a certain degree, yes I am agreeing. I do disagree with the points on DC, but that I already discussed.

Here are some polls to back up my claim on minority voters more supporting certain conservative stances, primarily on social issues --
The list could continue if I had more time to search. It's an issue that many Republicans are starting to realize is a winning one in minority groups, which is frightening when you think about it. Same with abortion, although abortion is one of the few social issues that's divisive no matter what cross-tabs you look at.

For the record, I support same-sex marriage and am not coming out here supporting those who wish to squash the rights of same-sex couples...I'm merely trying to statistically back up my claim that minority voters do tend to oppose same-sex marriage and abortion more than white voters.
 
:applause:

You're one of the few who validate their claims. Kudos (and nice sources, BTW; too often I see claims validated with something from a Blogspot or frontpagemag/dailykos post).
 
[quote name='t0llenz']100% agree. DC should have its land ceded back to Maryland and Virginia (probably more to Maryland) and then leave the non-populated areas as "non-state specific" land. That's it -- just as the founding father's intended. Then revoke the amendment giving 3 EVs to DC, considering the fact that people formally living in DC's electoral voice will now be heard in Maryland and Virginia.

Let's not even try to discuss the fact that adding two new voting members to Congress without a Constitutional amendment, especially to a non-state, is unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Virginia's contribution to DC was already given back to Virginia (called retrocession) in 1847 for a variety of reasons, including residents there wanted to be able to vote in Virginia, hold slaves (DC was a free area), no federal buildings were built on the Virginia part, et cetera. What was retroceded to Virginia is now Arlington County and Alexandria city, both right across the river from the present District. Therefore, any further retrocession would likely include only land given back to Maryland since it is all north/east of the Potomac River.

And thus ends our history lesson for today.
 
Yes well done tollens. I find unsubstantiated claims and rhetorical jargon more entertaining myself, albeit less persuasive.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']


It's hard to get over the GOP stances on hate crimes laws, affirmative action policies, cultural hegemony, severe ethnocentrism, and others just to find that you agree with the GOP on some issues. That's no longer "hold your nose and voting," it's "voting for someone you vehemently disagree with."
[/QUOTE]


more of a side thought, but the Republicans have their own form of Affirmative Action in the rampant amount of cronyism going on in DC. If you look at most of Bush's appointments from Brownie to Gonzales all have either some sort of connection to bush involving donation/favor. In fact the recent deal with the Kurds and Hunt Oil , a big Bush booster, is leading to increased instability in Iraq if thats even possible.

So in fact the most qualified people aren't getting these important government jobs. Which is their biggest argument against affirmative action
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Actually, Virginia's contribution to DC was already given back to Virginia (called retrocession) in 1847 for a variety of reasons, including residents there wanted to be able to vote in Virginia, hold slaves (DC was a free area), no federal buildings were built on the Virginia part, et cetera. What was retroceded to Virginia is now Arlington County and Alexandria city, both right across the river from the present District. Therefore, any further retrocession would likely include only land given back to Maryland since it is all north/east of the Potomac River.

And thus ends our history lesson for today.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for that, I actually didn't know how much of the Virginian land in DC was retroceded back to VA. Frankly, I think the rest should be retroceded (neat term) back to Maryland and a lot of these issues would be solved very smoothly. There wouldn't be calls for DC statehood, there wouldn't be people being taxed without representation, there wouldn't be a City where people are turned into guinea pigs for new ideas for federal projects, the list goes on.

Thanks mykevermin. I'm not a big willy nilly claimer of statistics. Frankly, I'm sorry I couldn't find the original poll I found this information from. I remember seeing some 2004 cross tabs after the election as the first polls to discuss this trend amongst minority voters with regards to "socially conservative issues."

The problem with most conservatives is that they're mislabeled. A lot of them are more "Statists" as I like to call them -- they're okay with the federal government meddling in the affairs of the people, so long as its to keep their idea of societal traditions intact and to provide welfare for those at the top of the financial ladder who helped get them elected. An actual conservative wants to conserve traditional form of governance -- i.e. push more of these issues back to the states and limit the scope of the federal government to interstate commerce, national defense, and very little else. That's where I stand...today, these people are mostly found as Libertarians -- but when you lean more towards pro-life and think pulling immediately out of Iraq would be suicide, Libertarians are a little less supportive of you...
 
[quote name='t0llenz']Thanks for that, I actually didn't know how much of the Virginian land in DC was retroceded back to VA. Frankly, I think the rest should be retroceded (neat term) back to Maryland and a lot of these issues would be solved very smoothly. There wouldn't be calls for DC statehood, there wouldn't be people being taxed without representation, there wouldn't be a City where people are turned into guinea pigs for new ideas for federal projects, the list goes on.

Thanks mykevermin. I'm not a big willy nilly claimer of statistics. Frankly, I'm sorry I couldn't find the original poll I found this information from. I remember seeing some 2004 cross tabs after the election as the first polls to discuss this trend amongst minority voters with regards to "socially conservative issues."

The problem with most conservatives is that they're mislabeled. A lot of them are more "Statists" as I like to call them -- they're okay with the federal government meddling in the affairs of the people, so long as its to keep their idea of societal traditions intact and to provide welfare for those at the top of the financial ladder who helped get them elected. An actual conservative wants to conserve traditional form of governance -- i.e. push more of these issues back to the states and limit the scope of the federal government to interstate commerce, national defense, and very little else. That's where I stand...today, these people are mostly found as Libertarians -- but when you lean more towards pro-life and think pulling immediately out of Iraq would be suicide, Libertarians are a little less supportive of you...[/QUOTE]

Could be a factor of so many people being vehemently against the war that being in favor of trying to fix things in Iraq (or having a benchmark-based withdrawal) is considered akin to supporting Bush and the neocon agenda. That's one thing the country is fucked up on: the idea that ensuring the we succeed in Iraq is not an idea that is supported, not because it's a moral obligation as the nation who overthrew their tyrannical dictator, but because if things succeed in Iraq, it suddenly justifies what Bush et al. started (which, of course, could be no further from the truth).

I never considered Libertarians such a discerning bunch. I thought them to be comprised of genuine conservatives (those uninterested in social issues and dedicated to keeping government from controlling them, as well as those who believe in a very limited federal government), and those left-wingers who loathe the corporate state we're in, and fall in line with Chomsky's grievances with the state, yet aren't in favor of replacing that with something resembling socialism. Which, in reality, is a pretty righteous spectrum.
 
bread's done
Back
Top