Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
RNC Race Ends; Michael Steele Wins Coveted Job at Helm of Sinking Ship
The Republican Party now has something in common with the American government it no longer controls: it's run by a black man, in the Republicans' case former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, elected today to chair the Republican National Committee.
Follow the fooferaw that lead to Steele's victory with play-by-play news and analysis from David Weigel over at the Washington Independent.
As my account of the RNC chair race build up concluded, and Steele's victory has not made me change my mind, the GOP isn't very solid on what to do to save itself, much less do right by this great nation it strives to control, and Steele's election (or, to be fair, that of any of the equally uninspiring crew he was up against) isn't going to change that.
LGF Fan|1.30.09 @ 7:57PM|#
"from David Weigel over at the Washington Independent. "
DEMOCRAT SHIL!!!11!!111
Republican Party|1.30.09 @ 8:01PM|#
Michael Steele Wins Coveted Job at Helm of Sinking
Ship
The rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated.
|1.30.09 @ 8:19PM|#
Ah, a post about race. For a moment, I thought I was on a Salon.com thread. Yawn.
|1.30.09 @ 8:23PM|#
And while I'm at it, get over your antique notions of what constitutes black. It will help you avoid reductionist assertions like the one you make in your first paragraph. By the tone and implications of your post, sir, you would lump Lena Horne and Djimon Honsou into the same bucket. That's plain ignorant.
Elemenope|1.30.09 @ 8:25PM|#
By the tone and implications of your post, sir, you would
lump Lena Horne and Djimon Honsou into the same bucket. That's
plain ignorant.
Yeah. I mean, I don't think they'd be comfortable sharing a
bucket.
Hugh Akston|1.30.09 @ 8:45PM|#
I can't wait to see what they choose as the new slogan in their
campaign to reinvent the GOP into a dynamic organization the likes
of which no one has ever seen.
Yes we will!
or
Yes we do!
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.30.09 @ 8:55PM|#
2010 may, if the Republicans play their cards right, be another 1994 but the congressional term is early yet. The fact that no Republican in the House voted for this "stimulus bill" might help. But, again, the term is still early yet.
Stephen Gordon|1.30.09 @ 8:58PM|#
I can't wait to see what they choose as the new slogan in
their campaign to reinvent the GOP into a dynamic organization the
likes of which no one has ever seen.
Tax cuts AND change
An Army of One
We used to be bigger than the LP
God's Only Party (GOP)
We're too big to fail
Stimulate this (but only from the adjoining bathroom stall)
|1.30.09 @ 9:05PM|#
Past time for the Repuglycuns to grab their ankles and kiss
collective ass goodbye.
The Repuglycant Party has come full circle more than once from the
party of Lincoln. It's like buzzards circling a fellow downed
buzzard.
bruce|1.30.09 @ 9:10PM|#
yeah, but he's a cat. prominent republican cats are as rare as hens' teeth.
Robert|1.30.09 @ 9:25PM|#
I'm bemused by how every few yrs. people talk of one of the major USAn political parties as if it's sinking into oblivion, and it hardly ever gets worse than a swing from 55-45 to 45-55 in the votes over the whole nation. It doesn't look like the GOP is going to go from major party status down to 10 percenters the way the Liberals did in Britain, does it?
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.30.09 @ 9:28PM|#
"It doesn't look like the GOP is going to go from major party
status down to 10 percenters the way the Liberals did in Britain,
does it?"
That depends. It looks as if it might be trying to act like it has
a spine if the House Republican's vote against the "stimulus" bill
is any indication. If it keeps that up it might be able to come
back.
|1.30.09 @ 9:53PM|#
Brian Doherty is in fact a shil. We have a two party system;
it's here to stay. You want to make real change you have to work in
the two party system. There's hope as long as there's a Republican
Liberty Caucus and other who will counterbalance the social
conservatives (the Rel. Right) The Libertarian Party is a joke and
writers like Doherty play cute criticizing both parties. Which
party is the party of liberty which is the lesser of two
evils.
And by the way COSMOTARIANS SUCK! How's Obama working out for all
you libertards?
|1.30.09 @ 9:57PM|#
The trouble with objecting to "stimulus" is that it is in the
eye of the beholder, so to speak, or the "pleasure" center of the
brain.
There are many erogenous zones and many erroneous zones.
Brock|1.30.09 @ 10:26PM|#
Wait, is Weigel gone? How did I miss the wheels up/don't let the door hit you in the butt party?
Kolohe|1.30.09 @ 10:45PM|#
One thing Steele should be able to fix just by his presence: ending the preemptory dismissal of any part of the electorate that lives more than one family per acre. Obviously not a sufficient condition for restoring Republican fortunes, but for sure a necessary one.
Kolohe|1.30.09 @ 10:50PM|#
And I hope Steele realizes he needs to hit a lot of singles, and not try for the home runs. A lot of small high percentage moves that may not amount to much in the short run but will pay dividends over the long haul. And that the party gives him time to do this. It's what Dean and then Obama's team did in the swing from 02 to 06. Steele needs to be Theo Epstein not Dan Snyder (to mix metaphors a bit)
bill|1.30.09 @ 10:51PM|#
All you have to do is wait. Once the economy keeps going in the shitter despite whatever the Dems do, or because of it, the Repubs will be back.
|1.30.09 @ 11:17PM|#
I've never laughed so much at a Hit & Run comment thread as I have in this one. Well done, everyone.
|1.31.09 @ 12:08AM|#
I've never laughed so much at a Hit & Run comment as I have at this one. Well done, John-David.
|1.31.09 @ 12:20AM|#
If Mitt Romney's priorities are any indication, the Group of Old People have learned nothing...
|1.31.09 @ 1:37AM|#
Ah, a post about race. For a moment, I thought I was on a
Salon.com thread. Yawn.
You're new here, aren't you?
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 2:58AM|#
LONEWACKO!!!!!!!!!!!
*shakes fist in air*
I mean . . . CHRIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*shakes fist in air*
|1.31.09 @ 5:45AM|#
We have a two party system; it's here to stay.
Not hardly. We have a one-party system with two brands and no
substantial policy differences.
-jcr
MNG|1.31.09 @ 8:10AM|#
Kolohe
You hit it on the head. It's crazy for the GOP to act in such a way
that it writes off huge areas. This could partly be remedied by
just being a little more careful about what their officials say.
But one thing that will be harder is that the Limbaugh-Hannity-LGF
hard-core media outlets have created a cadre of Republicans who
will stop at nothing less than complete purity from their officials
and they stupidly attack what they call "RINO's" while the more
hard core GOP elected officials act in ways that leave the few
moderate fellows they have in the lurch. The actions and positions
of some rural GOP state and federal legislators makes the GOP brand
very, very hard to sell in many suburban and urban areas. Democrats
don't walk around hating on Heath Shuler like the GOPers walk
around hating on Arlen Specter for example.
Some Guy|1.31.09 @ 8:40AM|#
I declared the Democrats dead after '04, yet the Republicans fucked things up in such a spectacular fashion that they rose from the dead. I have faith that by controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, the Dems will be able to do the same thing by 2013. After 20-30 more years of this, maybe then we'll start looking at letting in a real 3rd party.
|1.31.09 @ 9:43AM|#
I feel sorry for black Republicans. No matter how qualified you may be, people will say you are just there as a token. Obama runs a good campaign and he's fucking God, Steel runs a good campaign and he's uninspiring.
|1.31.09 @ 9:46AM|#
Not that Doherty called Steel a token. That's just what the callers on c-span are saying this morning.
Ironic|1.31.09 @ 10:17AM|#
I wonder if Condi Rice will run for POTUS in 2012. That could be an interesting race. What will the NAACP do then? If both major party candidates are black how will they be able to argue that racism is a major problem in the Untied States?
MNG|1.31.09 @ 10:22AM|#
"If both major party candidates are black how will they be able
to argue that racism is a major problem in the Untied
States?"
The NAACP? Are you kidding? They'd find a way.
I once saw the NAACP launch an investigation into the number of
black anchormen and women in an area stating that black faces were
probably marginalized. After the investigation they found that
there were in fact more black anchormen and women in the area than
white ones. So their conclusion: that having so many black faces on
tv was actually more racist because it gave the audience the
mistaken illusion that black people as a whole were doing well!
Elemenope|1.31.09 @ 11:06AM|#
I feel sorry for black Republicans. No matter how qualified
you may be, people will say you are just there as a token. Obama
runs a good campaign and he's fucking God, Steel runs a good
campaign and he's uninspiring.
Not that Doherty called Steel a token. That's just what the callers
on c-span are saying this morning.
The timing is the problem more than anything else. The GOP *just so
happens* to elect a black guy as its new leader a week after the
other team puts a black guy in the top executive office, you can
forgive people's minds immediately running to "token".
Kreel Sarloo|1.31.09 @ 12:09PM|#
I wonder if Condi Rice will run for POTUS in 2012. That could be an interesting race. What will the NAACP do then? If both major party candidates are black how will they be able to argue that racism is a major problem in the Untied States?
As far as the NAACP is concerned Condi Rice (like Clarence Thomas)
isn't really black.
Much like NOW's view that Condi Rice and Sarah Palin aren't really
women.
KYJurisDoctor|1.31.09 @ 12:17PM|#
While I wish Michael Steele good luck in his new position, I see
his selection as a ploy for the GOP to make Blacks and other
minorities feel like the party is suddenly pro minorities and anti
racists.
Please color me "UNIMPRESSED".
Until the party adopts SUBSTANTIVE steps rather SYMBOLIC ones to
address its INHERENT problems, it might as well be whistling DIXIE!
OsiSpeaks[dot]com
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 12:23PM|#
KYJurisDoctor,
I disagree with the GOP on many social types of issues but I must
defend them on this point. Consider the following:
1. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican
2. The first black members of Congress were black.
3. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the
Civil Rights Act
4. It was Democrats in the South and not Republicans who supported
segregation in the South
5. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican.
6. It was Ronald Reagan who signed the law making Martin Luther
King Jr. Day a national holiday.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 12:26PM|#
make 2 the first black members of congress were Republicans
|1.31.09 @ 12:29PM|#
January 2009: hey, America loves black guys! Well, here's
one.
December 2009: What's going on? Everybody still hates us.
Hey, Lesbian: have you got any historical examples that are
accompanied by color photos?
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 12:34PM|#
Joe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rainey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_F._Long
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Elliott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_S._Turner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_T._Walls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Cain
zoltan|1.31.09 @ 12:37PM|#
7. To add, Eisenhower, a Republican, sent troops to integrate
Central High School.
8. The first black justice of the Supreme Court was a
Republican.
Elemenope|1.31.09 @ 12:39PM|#
LUG --
joe's got you on this one. Ever since the Democratic party went for
Civil Rights in the sixties and abandoned (most of) their Southern
racists, the GOP was all-too-happy to bring them into the fold.
Since then, the GOP has acted to deserve a lot of the hostility
thrown towards them by the Black community.
The GOP's stock retort, "we're the party of Abraham Lincoln",
should be considered for what it is: a sadly ironic historical
footnote. What really matters is what they do today. What's
hilarious is that their embrace of Southern whites really screwed
them in the end, by denying them a predominantly socially
conservative constituency and ceding them entirely to their
opposition. Whoops.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 12:44PM|#
"Ever since the Democratic party went for Civil Rights in the
sixties"
That's the joke. More Republicans voted for that in Congress than
Democrats.
"the GOP was all-too-happy to bring them into the fold."
The GOP simply doesn't assume that all Southerners are racists.
|1.31.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Lesbian,
Still black and white photos. Lithographs, some of them.
I was hoping for something from the past decade. Or two. Or three.
Or four.
|1.31.09 @ 12:46PM|#
The GOP simply doesn't assume that all Southerners are
racists.
Ah, that must be why the Southern Strategy shied away so much from
racially charged issues.
Umwhat?
BDB|1.31.09 @ 12:47PM|#
Is that why all the deep south states voted for Goldwater in '64, LSUG? Because Republicans loved civil rights legislation?
|1.31.09 @ 12:48PM|#
The timing is the problem more than anything else. The GOP
*just so happens* to elect a black guy as its new leader a week
after the other team puts a black guy in the top executive
office
...after having spent a solid year + saying that the Democratic
candidate was an unqualified token.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 12:49PM|#
and a Supreme Court Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 12:51PM|#
"Ah, that must be why the Southern Strategy shied away so much
from racially charged issues."
What? Not every issue on Earth has something to do with race. What
are you saying?
|1.31.09 @ 12:51PM|#
Don't forget the stage shots from the 2000 and 2004 conventions,
LUG. Lotsa black Republican sewer commissioners and state
representatives got prime, front row seats there, thus refuting
once and for the notion that Republicans have appealed to racism
AND engaged in tokenism.
That's not smoke, Naga. It's desperation.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 12:52PM|#
"Hey, we got one! We got one! Lookie here!"
You were the one who asked.
|1.31.09 @ 12:53PM|#
What? Not every issue on Earth has something to do with
race. What are you saying?
Oh my God.
Look, LUG, if you're going to expound on Republicans and racial
politics, it might be helpful to maybe scan the Wikipedia page on
the Southern Strategy first.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 12:55PM|#
joe,
I refute your argument thus . . . link
Unless I totally missed the point of your post, of course.
BDB|1.31.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"joe | January 31, 2009, 12:51pm | #
Don't forget the stage shots from the 2000 and 2004 conventions,
LUG."
Funny, this year it's like they didn't even try
that.
Republicans used to at least have Arabs, East Indians, and Asians
vote for them.
Lesbian Until Graduation|1.31.09 @ 1:00PM|#
Joe, the Southern Strategy as it is used in modern times has to do with relgious zealots not racists. I oppose this strategy but the issue here is racism and that is the only charge I am defending the Republicans on.
|1.31.09 @ 1:06PM|#
Joe, the Southern Strategy as it is used in modern times has
to do with relgious zealots not racists.
I actually agree with you somewhat - under George W. Bush, the
explicit racial politics that defined Republican campaigns from
Nixon through Dole were almost completely absent. Quite the
opposite, Rove/Bush worked very hard to reassure voters that those
politics were a thing of a past.
As BDB points out, they backed away from that progress in the 2008
race, moving a little more towards the "Let's welcome Macaca to the
real Virginia," "Real Americans" type of politics, but even that
was different from the old Southern Strategy. Racial diversity was
treated as an aspect of cosmopolitan-ness, the sort of thing those
people on the coasts and big cities have, while "Real Americans"
come from places that are "All American."
|1.31.09 @ 1:10PM|#
PS, LUG,
The proper noun "Southern Strategy" is most commonly used to refer
to one specific political strategy - that deployed by the
Republicans in the decades following the Civil Rights Act and the
realignment it brought about. There have been numerous strategies
politicians have used to try to appeal to southern voters - FDR's
economic development efforts in southern states, for example, or
the Jesusland imagery Bush deployed - which are "southern
strategies" of a sort, but when most people talk about the Southern
Strategy, they mean Nixon/Buchanan/Reagan/Atwater racial politics
of a particular era.
Elemenope|1.31.09 @ 1:14PM|#
For those of you who were curious about the Google shenanigans mentioned earlier, here's a link.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 1:21PM|#
joe,
If you scare LUG into staying lesbian so . . . help . . . me . . .
GOD!
*shakes fist menacingly in joe's direction*
Fluffy|1.31.09 @ 1:25PM|#
The argument about the GOP and blacks seems to think that it's
still 1996.
The Republican party really doesn't have much more than a big toe
in the water of "secret racism" any more. They are much more about
hating teh gheys and teh atheists and teh Moozlims.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 1:27PM|#
joe,
Seriously though. I agree with your 1:10 post. Your post at 1:06 is
another matter. I believe that your take is a bit . . . subjective.
The impression I always got was that McCain was trying to paint
himself as an outsider to the political system.
BDB|1.31.09 @ 1:28PM|#
Naga, I think he's talking about McCain post-Palin. His whole campaign took a....darker turn after the convention.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 1:32PM|#
BDB,
Hmmmmmmm. Maybe. Still a bit subjective but I can follow that a
little better. He really started getting dirty after the
convention.
BDB|1.31.09 @ 1:32PM|#
Go take a look at the Living Room Candidate website and arrange McCain's ads in chronological order to see what I mean. They start out as standard negative (and somewhat funny) ads, but sometime around early September they go off the rials into LoneWacko territory.
BDB|1.31.09 @ 1:33PM|#
It wasn't standard dirty, though. Like I said, it was really weird/paranoid dirty. Compare the Windsurfing Bush ad to, say, the Ayers ad.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 1:37PM|#
BDB,
No thanks. I'm sure it shows that I watch little tv. You did remind
me of an awesome moment in time though. Some ad came on about how
Obama was part of some ACORN cospiracy and one of my roommates
slammed his glass down and just complains about this crazy ad shit.
His final take on it? "Do we really want old man McCain's fingers
on the button when he's in a cranky mood?" I could not
disagree.
BDB|1.31.09 @ 1:39PM|#
His final take on it? "Do we really want old man McCain's fingers on the button when he's in a cranky mood?" I could not disagree.
Yeah, that's the conclusion most of the country reached by the last
week of October. McCain's fall campaign was just horribly
executed.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 1:44PM|#
BDB,
Well that is all moot now. HOPE and CHANGE has come to
Washington!
|1.31.09 @ 1:46PM|#
Naga Shadow,
The impression I always got was that McCain was trying to paint
himself as an outsider to the political system.
I agree that HE was. I think there was a huge, strange disconnect
between John McCain and his party, even his own campaign. Palin,
and every other Republican with face time, and even McCain's own
advisors would go out and whip up the "Scary Secret Muslim
Terrorist" shtick, and his supporters would get all worked up, and
then he would talk them down. I can't recall ever seeing anything
like it.
|1.31.09 @ 1:50PM|#
John McCain's campaign was run more like Bush in 2000 than like
Obama's campaign, or either of the Clintons' campaigns, or Poppy
Bush, or Dole.
McCain, like Bush, was like the talent in someone else's
production. But while Bush was a good fit for what Rove was trying
to do, McCain was an awful fit for the campaign teams'
strategy.
|1.31.09 @ 1:51PM|#
McCain's fall campaign was just horribly
executed.
If the Republican National Committee had had somebody competent in
charge, Queeg and Palin would have been horribly executed.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 1:58PM|#
joe,
Ah. Acknowledged. I would definitely fall in line with that
reasoning. Sorry for being difficult.
|1.31.09 @ 2:22PM|#
Difficult I can live with.
You can be as difficult with me as you like. You're smart and
insightful, and honest in your arguments, so it's all good.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 2:29PM|#
Are you trying to make me blush? I have a self depreciating(read that as dry) sense of humor so it tends to make me open minded about when others are being stupid and when I'm being stupid. I just realized we were arguing about nomenclature. I was being stupid.
|1.31.09 @ 2:41PM|#
No, no, it was a good point. There's a tendency to talk about what "McCain" did when discussing his campaign, and a lot of what McCain individually did is quite different than what the McCain campaign did.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 2:54PM|#
Elemenope,
That statement should be read with sarcastic haughtiness. Not with
meek trembling.
Naga Sadow|1.31.09 @ 2:57PM|#
joe,
You are suggesting we tripped over the others arguments? Sounds
about right.
|1.31.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Yeah, I'm...
giggle...
I've got...
wait a minute...
wait a minute...
I've always had...
TWO LEFT FEET!
Tap tap tap. Is this thing on?
|1.31.09 @ 5:08PM|#
The GOP isn't going to die - at all. It will simply morph even more into a lighter version of the Democratic Party. There'll eventually be another change of guard, but both will be advocating more or less the same policies, while strangling any major change to the status quo. Welcome to Great Britain.
|1.31.09 @ 6:47PM|#
The GOP isn't going to die. It's just going to be the minority
party for a while.
Could be a small minority for a long while, though.
MAX HATS|1.31.09 @ 7:44PM|#
The GOP has a real chance of re-emerging in a few years if they
fully adopt the mantra of fiscal responsibility. Once we're out of
the recession, people are going to see credit as an issue. And if
they do, I might have to actually consider voting for them.
Who am I kidding. As a guy who isn't christian, who lives in a big
city, and who occasionally drinks lattes, I am the bad guy. They
don't just not want my vote, they'd be insulted if I ever did vote
for them. And deficits will never be a greater priority than
starting wars and cutting taxes below revenue levels. Fuck it.
Sir Meatgoggles|2.1.09 @ 1:30AM|#
I, too, as a non-Republican, will defend Republicans against the
charges of racism. The major basis of this claim is that they 1.)
accepted candidates who were segregationists (unlike, say, Robert
Byrd), 2.) they argue that the welfare state led to bad economics,
which was perceived as a racial attack for some reason, 3.) some of
their most prominent voices tell off-color jokes and are
politically incorrect (like Rush Limbaugh, whom I don't believe is
a racist, as his show's right-hand man is black) and 4.) there
aren't many black people in the GOP.
On the first point, do you really blame a minority party from
accepting a coalition of politicians who they obviously have had
disagreements with in the past if it will give them a strong caucus
and control of a big region of the country? If a coalition of
elected conservatives like Jeff Flake, Tom Coburn and others who
many of us libertarians think are authoritarian on social issues
decided to join the LP, do you think the party would just say "no"
if it expands the party's influence?
As for the opposition to welfare economics, many were opposed to it
because welfare was keeping black people in the gutter. Ten years
after welfare reform, the number of children below the poverty line
declined from 22% to 18%, the number of employed single mothers
went from 62% to 69%, and overall poverty declined for African
Americans and Latinos. This
article shows how successful reform actually was 10 years
later. This was yet another example of how the bad economics of the
Left had been hurting the poor and how the situation was somewhat
alleviated by more conservative economics. This all fits into my
thesis that the Left's bad economic analysis and emotion-based
mentality fails poor people, and that Republicans fail to grab this
fact is just a sign that they are an elitist party.
I'm not even going to refute the third point, as political
incorrectness has little to do with racism and more to do with
oversensitivity by listeners and overreaction by the media and
groups who need to show that racism still widely exists in America
in order to solicit money for their campaigns.
On the last point, the GOP has failed to market itself to
minorities, because maybe in general the party is far more
colorblind and meritocratic than the Democrats, instead of
flaunting devotion to racial special interest groups. Of course,
partisan hacks will argue that they are devoted to defending white
people, but the only correlation I see is that they tend to support
policies that favor the rich and upper middle class, which tend to
be white. I think this is a mistake, and I hope that people listen
to some Republicans like Tim Pawlenty, who have argued that the GOP
needs a progressive rebranding. (By progressive, I mean policies
that recognize real economic impacts on the poor and the
proportional weight of a dollar for a poor person versus a rich
person, not necessarily welfare statism or redistribution of
income.)
By the way, let's also point out that it was a GOP administration
who nominated the first (and second) black Secretaries of State.
Let's also not forget that the Senate leader of the Democratic
party apparently asked Blago not to appoint any of the known black
candidates to replace Obama, but instead offered several white
candidates as "acceptable." I just think that the Democrats know
how to pander to racial minorities, but they are often in practice
just as racist as Republicans (which for both sides compared to the
past is not very much). It's like the North in the Reconstruction -
they wanted blacks to be free off in the distant South but many
would be uncomfortable if a black family moved into their
neighborhood...
|2.1.09 @ 2:13AM|#
So the Republicans think an inexperienced black man without credentials can save their party. We'll just look at what happened to the Democrats!
|2.1.09 @ 7:03AM|#
There have definitely been a handful of black Republicans that
I've respected if not always agreed with. Colin Powell and
Condoleeza (sp?) Rice, for instance. I'm hard-pressed to think of a
whole lot of politicians I'm a fan of, Republican or Democrat. I
think the dearth of black Republicans is as much hangover blowback
from the Southern Strategy as it is due to anything the Republicans
have or haven't done lately.
What's my point? I'm not sure I have one.
But I'm not certain that, as it pertains to race, the Dems or the
Republicans always do either.
|2.1.09 @ 12:18PM|#
The Republicans didn't just "accept" segregationists into their
party; Meatgoggles. Tthey actively courted them, and designed their
national political strategy around appealing to white-backlash
sentiment.
they argue that the welfare state led to bad economics, which
was perceived as a racial attack for some reason Yes, "for
some reason." For some totally incomprehensible reason, people
thought that references to "big black bucks" and "welfare queens"
had racial overtones. Whatever could it have been?
Welfare itself may not have been an explicitly racial issue, but
the Republicans quite deliberately worked to present it as one, as
part of their Southern Strategy and appeal to white-flighters.
Nobody on this board has any trouble understanding how gun control,
which is itself completely racially neutral, can be framed in terms
of an appeal to racism, but we're not supposed to understand how
welfare was? Give me a break.
But I suppose that very little of this makes any sense to someone
who thinks that disgust at racist humor is just a hustle.
|2.1.09 @ 2:04PM|#
Actually, I think the term Ronald Reagan used was "strong young
bucks," or "big young bucks" taking their welfare checks and buying
gin.
But he probably meant to conjure up an image of a young Polish man.
Or perhaps Canadian.
I will now look forward to the accusations of racism for not
pretending to be unaware that the term "bucks" has long been used
to refer to young black men.
Naga Sadow|2.1.09 @ 2:43PM|#
Sippin' on gin and juice . . . layback . . . with my mind on my
money and my money on my mind . . .
joe,
I think you are running afoul of cultural geography. Young white
boys are called bucks in most of Mississippi. Sorta the way you
order carbonated beverages in different parts of the country. Down
here you ask for a coke, up in Tennessee you ask for soda, and when
I was in Pennslyvania once, they used the term pop.
|2.1.09 @ 3:49PM|#
Naga,
I'm a liberal. I got my mind on your money and your money
on my mind.
Bwah hah haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Anyway, Ronald Reagan wasn't from Mississippi.
|2.1.09 @ 3:52PM|#
If one were so inclined, Naga, one could probably dream up a
perfectly innocent explanation for every single act of race-baiting
that Southern Strategy Republicans engaged in between 1968 and
1994.
Bringing up states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi? What do you
have against federalism, anyway?
Willie Horton ad? Purely a policy ad, about the criminal justice
system.
And on and on and on. The problem is, the people who put that
strategy together have come out and acknowledged exactly what they
were doing.
economist|2.1.09 @ 9:47PM|#
"I will now look forward to the accusations of racism for not
pretending to be unaware that the term 'bucks' has long been used
to refer to young black men."
WTH are you talking about, joe? My (very white) uncle used to
always talk about when he was "a young buck".
economist|2.1.09 @ 9:52PM|#
However, I tend to agree that the Republicans were courting white southern racists. However, trying to get the votes of a specific group doesn't mean one shares the predilections of members of that specific group. I think that Repubs would have been against bussing, for example, in any case. They sold it as one of a few major issues, in part because they knew it would get them the votes of many white southerners. While it's a distasteful strategy, it's also politics, which tends to be dirty, and tends to cause associations that most would prefer to avoid.
jim|2.1.09 @ 11:08PM|#
This whole sinking ship business is pure bullshit. People were saying the same exact thing about the Democratic Party in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
B|2.1.09 @ 11:10PM|#
"Willie Horton ad? Purely a policy ad, about the criminal
justice system."
You mean the ad that never mentioned the guy's race? Or the ad that
hammered a moron who furloughed a murderous felon? Now how could
that possibly be an issue in an election?
B|2.1.09 @ 11:12PM|#
And the ads run by the Democratic Party and their surrogates claiming that every time a Republican is elected another black church burns and electing George Bush is killing James Byrd all over again, exactly which color of bigot are those ads appealing to asshole?
B|2.1.09 @ 11:15PM|#
Of course joe you probably wouldn't remember the particulars of the Willie Horton ad because you were probably in diapers at the time. But don't let that stop you from explaining to us how a furlough program that lets out convicted felons who then go on to rape and murder is no big deal and anyone who thinks otherwise is a racist.
B|2.1.09 @ 11:55PM|#
I always get a kick from the jackasses, like joe, who pick apart
every fucking statement to find the supposed racism involved. A guy
insults a heckler's haircut, must be racism. A candidate mocks
big-city elitists in front of rural crowds, must be racism. I
suppose making fun of Charlie Rangel's tax problems and William
Jefferson's freezer full of cash is racism too, right joe? If I
mention that Obama's next cabinet picks should be Willie Nelson and
Wesley Snipes, does that make me racist? Assholes who claim that
"Real America" is the more subtle equivalent of "Go back to Africa
nigger" passed self-parody and went straight to retarded a long
time ago.
I am curious, where are/were the racism outrage police whenever
someone on the left mocks Clarence Thomas, Condaleeza Rice or Colin
Powell (although Powell slightly atoned for his sins in the left's
eyes when he endorsed Obama)? I can guarantee the only racist jokes
concerning Michael Steele will be coming from the left.
On a totally unrelated note, joe you are such a pathetic, whiny
little piece of shit. I can bet you got your ass kicked almost
every day of the fucking week when you were in high school, you
know, a few years ago. You are a self-righteous little shit who
thinks he knows everything. Seriously anyone who thinks mentioning
his masters degree, like you have in the past, will automatically
win an argument is an arrogant little prick. The fact that you
think that shitty, meaningless degree means anything is
hilarious.
|2.2.09 @ 10:42AM|#
I declared the Democrats dead after '04, yet the Republicans
fucked things up in such a spectacular fashion that they rose from
the dead. I have faith that by controlling the White House and both
houses of Congress, the Dems will be able to do the same thing by
2013.
Yep.
After 20-30 more years of this, maybe then we'll start looking
at letting in a real 3rd party.
Nope.
Stagman|2.2.09 @ 4:45PM|#
I wonder if Condi Rice will run for POTUS in 2012. That
could be an interesting race. What will the NAACP do then? If both
major party candidates are black how will they be able to argue
that racism is a major problem in the Untied States?
As far as the NAACP is concerned Condi Rice (like Clarence Thomas)
isn't really black.
Much like NOW's view that Condi Rice and Sarah Palin aren't really
women.
And once Obama is out of office they'll say he isn't really black
because: he has no ancestors that lived in the South during
slavery; was raised solely by a white mother; grew up in Hawaii (a
state with a non-white majority population); went to one of the
best private high schools in the country (Punahou); went to
Harvard.
zoltan|2.2.09 @ 6:11PM|#
A candidate mocks big-city elitists in front of rural
crowds, must be racism.
Like when George Allen called some Indian guy "macaca"? Because I
think that counts as racism. Besides, most of America lives in
suburban and urban areas, so the Republicans are just digging
themselves in an even bigger hole by insulting "big-city elitists"
to court those rural crowds. But I guess those are the only people
they'll find to bite at the "evolution is a lie" line. It's just
too easy.
zoltan|2.2.09 @ 6:18PM|#
On a side note, I just watched Jesus Camp last night (Creationist Adventures TV show and that particular type of sad, pathetic homeschooling mother) as well as ran into the crazy preacher on the West Mall of UT's campus holding a sign that really did say "Evolution is a lie". If these people weren't around, I wouldn't get to experience that strange sensation of laughing and crying at the same time.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245