Republican Party

GOP's Diverse Presidential Lineup Won't Solve its Minority Problem

It has a knack for picking candidates who are alienated from their communities

|

If the GOP is the party for whitebreads, then why does it have the most diverse presidential lineup in the history of

Diverse Dolls
mimitalks, married, under grace / Foter / CC BY-NC-ND

the republic? Not just that, it has more minorities in high-office than Democrats whether it is U.S. senate or state gubernatorial mansions.

But does this diversity mean that the GOP does not have a minority problem? No, because minorities have a problem with the GOP. And the problem is that the party has a knack for zeroing in on unpopular minority candidates who lack broad appeal in their own communities and are therefore poor ambassadors for it. I note in my column at The Week,

This is true in ascending order of Hispanics Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, African-American Ben Carson, and — above all — Indian-American Bobby Jindal, who is expected to announce his candidacy at the end of the month…

Jindal is a man of remarkable accomplishments who ought to be the golden boy of a community that worships at the altar of elite colleges. Raised by freshly immigrated parents, Jindal was admitted to not one, but two Ivy League graduate schools, both of which he spurned to pursue a Rhodes scholarship at Oxford University. And he defied all odds to make history as the first Indian-American governor of the country.

"And yet poor Bobby doesn't cut it with American desis (natives of India)," notes Hoover Institution fellow Tunku Varadarajan. Why?

Go here to find out.

Advertisement

NEXT: Dems Turn Against Obama on Trade Deal, Iowa Straw Poll Dead, NAACP Supports Dolezal: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. that is okay, the Democrats all white field won’t solve its white problem. Shika will never write about that of course.

    1. Exactly. The only difference is who gets called out by the media. The same goes for controversial issues. The GOP gets ask thise questions because they know whatever the answer is that are going to alienate half the population. The DNC gets a pass on those questions entirely.

      1. My spell checker works against me but my car is going to drive itself.

      2. The GOP gets elected by appealing to white racial resentment. It’s almost all they have. Stop blaming the media. Try blaming Republicans for the problems they created. I don’t see why that should be a problem for a libertarian.

        1. No, the Democrats get elected by promising free stuff to specific ethnic groups (which, by the way, is racist), and since whites are the ones not getting free stuff, they disproportionately end up voting for the other party. Why not? Why should white people vote democrat?

          Explain that to me Tony. What exactly is racist about wanting lower capital gains tax or free trade? Jesus, race is all you have isn’t it? It’s the best pretense of an argument you can come up with?

        2. The GOP gets elected by appealing to white racial resentment.

          The Dems get elected by appealing to racial resentment of whites, so it all balances out.

    2. Nor the democrats man gap.

    3. The Democrats have a black president currently.

      1. Yes, but after the last time we let a Democrat have more than 2 terms in the White House we decided not to ever let that happen again, so not really relevant to the current situation.

        Nice corpse fuck, btw. You must really like hearing yourself copy and paste the same retarded shit day after day after day.

      2. Which presumable means they’re racist against white people, by your insipid reasoning.

  2. Real people of color think and do as they are told by their white betters. And the number one rule is to absolutely hate the red team.

    Only fake people of color ignore those betters.

    1. I can just imagine Dipshit alone on the couch late on Saturday night, surrounded by eight cats with a giant bowl of ice cream and bon-bons, sticking pins in her Bobby Jin-doll over and over again while spittle runs down her chin.

  3. Identity politics uber alles.

    1. Certainly the Dems milk identity politics for all its worth and have for 150 years. Pretty much since Tammany Hall found out that new immigrants could be fearmongered into a machine that then provided them with electoral spoils – and Jacksonians found out that poor white trash in the South could be fearmongered into a machine that ‘protected’ them from poor rampaging ex-slaves coming after their virginal women.

      But if you ignore the fearmongering stuff, there is a serious value for political parties in at least trying to go into neighborhoods that don’t look like you and haven’t voted for you and talking to them as if you will, you know, actually represent them too if elected. The GOP doesn’t do that AT ALL. And simply gerrymandering those folks into Dem districts makes the problem worse because the GOP begins to believe it doesn’t ever need to represent them either. So pretty soon the GOP ends up being a bunch of old (emphasis on really freaking old) white folks sipping tea at the country club and yapping about how the coons just don’t understand why tax deductions for polo ponies is so important for economic growth.

      1. did you miss the part in the article about the non-whites seeking the GOP nomination? And the only black Senator is black. From South Carolina of all places. The only black in Congress from outside the usual “safe” district is from Utah. Again, of all places. This reality does not square with your white folks drinking tea.

        1. But those guys are all Uncle Toms and Auntie Jemimahs, so they don’t matter.

        2. I’m talking about the GOP in CITIES. Where they don’t elect anyone

          1. Chicken and egg problem, there.

            Why would the Repubs waste limited resources in places where (a) the electoral machinery is completely under the control of their enemies and (b) the vote consistently runs 80% against them?

            1. They won’t. And that’s also why they won’t listen to ‘libertarian-leaning’ Republicans – or ‘minority’ Republicans. Those may be nominal/token parts of the party – but they don’t deliver much in the areas that GOP will focus its resources on.

  4. “Go here to find out.”

    No

  5. Maybe the Republicans should learn how to broaden their minority/ female appeal from Libertarians.

    *ducks and runs*

    1. “Are you *sure* the chicks will like it if I tell this joke?”

      “Oh, they’ll think it’s hilarious! Would I lie to a Republican?”

  6. Yeah, it’s Ben Carson’s fault that he has a brain and decided to get an education and make something of himself. Doesn’t that traitor to “his community” know that he’s supposed to hate on whitey anyway?

    Once a Dipshit, always a Dipshit.

  7. Women and minorities are unlikely to ever vote GOP because the Democrats are willing to give them more ‘free’ stuff. Simple as that.

    1. Actually, married women are more likely to vote Republican than Democrat – in roughly the same percentage as men do.

      1. So, women who have men providing for them are less likely to vote for the team of free shit. And tend to adopt the ideology of their spouses.

        The percentage of women who are married is declining.

        1. Or it could be that feminists marry at a lower rate and the number of feminists has increased.

          1. Which sounds more plausible than women adopting the ideology of their spouses, for the simple fact that people don’t change unless they want to.

          2. Most women aren’t batshit crazy feminists. There are even reasonable feminists out there. They just aren’t the ones writing for Slate/Salon that are typically referenced here.

            It’s a simple matter of more women being economically independent. They graduate from college at higher rates and have careers.

            One message every libertarian needs to have with them as that capitalism more than anything has led to the emancipation of women. Without it fundamentally changing the skills needed to enter the work force, there never would have been a serious female emancipation movement. But somehow, the leftists laid claim to that legacy, too.

            1. Which is why work force participation rates of women has tracked perfectly with the rate of economic freedom in the U.S?

              Honestly it would be more accurately phrased as capitalist’s desire to drive down wages has been the chief impetus behind female’s entering the workplace.

              1. Why is females working seen as some emancipation. It seems like men handing everything to you was a much better deal.

            2. “Most women aren’t batshit crazy feminists. There are even reasonable feminists out there. They just aren’t the ones writing for Slate/Salon that are typically referenced here.

              It’s a simple matter of more women being economically independent. They graduate from college at higher rates and have careers.”

              I don’t disagree with any of this, but I’m confused as to your point. Above you basically implied that women either vote for free shit or vote for their husband who provides for them. Now you’re saying they’re more economically independent.

              1. and I’m sure there are women who vote for free shit. I just don’t think you can generalize about women voting patterns beyond the fact that women are more likely to be feminist and Democrats are the party of feminism. That said, I want to reiterate that I agree that not every woman is a feminist. Which is why the voting gender gap isn’t as dramatic as the press makes it out to be.

                1. The gap is barely significant in fact. What is it, like 54-46 or 53-47?

                  I’d say the ‘free stuff for women’ element is more than enough to explain those few percentage points. And why not? It’s perfectly in accord with rational self-interest to vote for someone to get free stuff.

                  But it’s also perfectly rational for a white male to vote against the party that is giving other people free stuff at his expense, so by the same token, leftists are absurd to complain about white people or males disproportionately voting Republican. It makes no sense frankly. When most Democrats are women, do we ask “why aren’t the Democrats doing enough for men?” No. So why do we ask the opposite question when most Republicans are men? Why is it that whenever men disproportionately do something, that something is concluded to be evil, along with the men who do it?

              2. So, yea, my point is there are multiple factors that go into it. Honestly, none of my explanations are particularly flattering for the female sex.

                Women are more economically independent, but still make less money than men overall. The .76 on the dollar claim isn’t completely baseless, just not a reflection of discrimination.

                Which is why work force participation rates of women has tracked perfectly with the rate of economic freedom in the U.S?

                I don’t even know what this is referring to, troll. One of the few things Marx correctly identified was the ability of industrial workers to organize.

                Your second remark makes even less sense. You are saying that adding women to the workforce drove down the price of labor? And painting that as a sin? Capitalists wanted cheap labor, no doubt. They didn’t care if it was black, Irish, Italian, or female. Or even children, in many cases. Just like after the Civil War, business owners who wanted evil profits sold to blacks rather than see their competition gain an advantage over them (hence government imposing Jim Crow laws).

                Meanwhile, progressive champions in the 20th century tried to drive women out of the workforce during the depression.

                Capitalists accomplished something good regardless of their intentions. Women would still be shackled to their stoves if not for industrialization and capitalism.

                1. So, to sum that up – good intentions don’t matter for shit. Neither do ‘bad’ intentions like profit seeking eliminate you from doing something good. It’s a childlike argument from a childlike prog.

                2. The .76 on the dollar claim isn’t completely baseless, just not a reflection of discrimination.

                  No, not baseless. Just completely meaningless. Without a second moment, you can’t make heads or tails of just what that .76 means. There could be a couple of guys making a fuckton of money while most guys make the same as most women. Then all you’re saying is that there aren’t comparable women making a fuckton of money. It could be that men’s earnings are more spread out all over the place, but higher on average. Then you’re likely talking an issue of occupational choice. The really insane thing about social science is that it relies almost totally on statistics and is practiced by people who could barely be relied upon to complete a freshman intro to statistics class.

    2. It takes a village to carry a mattress.

  8. So the GOP minorities have left the reservation/plantation/taj mahal?

    I’m not sure of the point of this article. How is an Indian SUPPOSED to think Shikha? I bet a good number of injuns may think that YOU are a poor ambassador…

    1. **/non-woodchipping disclaimer

      I don’t support Jindal, Carson, Rubio or Cruz. But the transparently personal hatred Shikha has for Jindal really grates on my nerves and compels me to defend him.

      1. the transparently personal hatred Shikha has for Jindal

        I suspect it’s because he’s an apostate from hinduism. She always works in his religion and how he *gasp* converted to catholicism. She’s almost as bad as a muslim, but at least she hasn’t called for Jindal to be put to death for apostasy yet.

        1. That, and he has the nerve to think of himself as American as opposed to Indian-American.

          He’s supposed to think of white Christian rednecks are his mortal enemy and he doesn’t, which is unforgivable to Dipshit. She’s a complete and total fucking loser.

        2. Shikha’s greatest weakness – rage against Jindal’s Hindu apostasy.

  9. It has a knack for picking candidates who are alienated from their communities

    And the Democrats don’t? Obama grew up overseas and later Hawaii, where he attended a private school before going to elite universities. I guess that’s typical and completely in touch with the African American experience. And their 2016 lineup is all old white people, but it’s the GOP’s minority candidates that are “alienated from their communities?”

    1. Perception is reality. The version of reality espoused by our media is that one party is the party of people of color. The other is for old white men.

      One party speaks in the language of identity politics. The other is accused of dog whistle racism.

      Democrats don’t care about minorities, but they do a better job of using language to pretend that they do.

    2. And their 2016 lineup is all old white people,

      None of which will pull a majority of old white people, or probably even white people, in the general election.

      Nope. not alienated from “their community” (whatever the fuck that means) at all.

      Who says your community is determined by the color of your skin, anyway? Would this mean that the NAACP director who has been passing as black is alienated from her community?

  10. I look forward to thoughtful and receptive comments on this article.

    1. Still looking forward to it. May need binoculars.

  11. This is sort of a bizarre article.

    Take this passage:
    “Jindal no doubt knows that, although Hinduism is one of the great religions of the world, among his fellow Christians it is regarded as a strange faith whose followers pray to multi-headed gods and believe in reincarnation. He could have used his familiarity with both to demystify Hinduism to his adopted community.”

    The author seems to view religions like they were nations or sports teams, as opposed to faiths with quite specific and differing beliefs. I’m an atheist, myself, but I know enough to recognize the above as bunk.

    The central mission of Catholics isn’t “make people feel good about themselves” and it certainly isn’t “make other religions more appealing to Christians”. Their central mission is, basically, “help people get into heaven”. From a Christian perspective, Hinduism is not merely wrong but dangerous to the souls of its believers. That’s why the RCC preaches tolerance of the “stop killing each other” variety, not the “pretend all religions are equally valid” variety.

  12. First, of course, is the matter of his religious conversion from Hinduism to Catholicism[…]

    Jindal no doubt knows that, although Hinduism is one of the great religions of the world, among his fellow Christians it is regarded as a strange faith whose followers pray to multi-headed gods and believe in reincarnation. He could have used his familiarity with both to demystify Hinduism to his adopted community[…]

    this only confirms for Indian Americans ? rightly or wrongly ? that Republicans are a narrow-minded bunch whose acceptance requires them to reject their faith, ways, and language. It is hardly any surprise, then, that they run into the arms of Democrats who might impose confiscatory taxes ? but at least don’t see them as a mortal threat to God, country, and apple pie. To the contrary, they pay homage to immigrant contributions to the great American mosaic

    So the problem with Jindal is… that he’s too much of a Catholic and that he’s not some kind of apologist for Hinduism.

    Why is it Jindal’s job to proselytize for a faith he doesn’t believe in, and how the fuck is it meritorious of the immigrant community he’s a part of to suggest that he’s effectively being ostracized by his fellow immigrants for a sincere conversion to the majority faith of this country?

    I don’t know any Indian immigrants who are that much of arrogant assholes about Hinduism — but if I did I’d gladly tell them that they picked the wrong country to pull that shit.

    1. This isn’t about Hinduism. The only person who flusters Dahlia more than Jindal is Modi, who Dahlia whiningly accuses of Hindu chauvinism. What this about is Dahlia’s hatred of assimilation. A hatred quite frankly that shares shares with many Reasonoids because assimilation, or more accurately the complete absence of assimilation among some immigrant groups, is holding up open bordertopia. For Dahlia, the goal of every Indian American should be push and push to make sure that everyone of Dahlia’s cousins gets into the country.

  13. At least Ms. Dalmia was able to utter some atypical praise of Hinduism!

    “It is hardly any surprise, then, that [Indian Americans] run into the arms of Democrats who might impose confiscatory taxes ? but at least don’t see them as a mortal threat to God, country, and apple pie. To the contrary, they [Democrats] pay homage to immigrant contributions to the great American mosaic.”

    So, Ms. Dalmia is saying that Indian Americans are masochistic morons?

    And I’m not sure if “tolerant as a Democrat” is a commonly-heard phrase among Indian-American shopkeepers in poor areas.

  14. If my experience in IT is any indication, the reason so many Indians voted for Obama is because an incredibly high percentage of them were working on projects funded by Obamacare IT grants.

  15. I kid, I kid.

    1. At least you didn’t make a tech support joke.

  16. Seriously, Indians vote for socialist policies in India. The country is a filthy hellhole mired in poverty, and they’ve been banging their heads against the break wall well over half a century now. Up until the 21st century, they basically just re-elected the same group of Hindu socialists since they gained independence.

    So, they come here, and they have one party that is closest to speaking their economic language. They have a media that rams the idea of the Democrats as the party of minorities down their throats. And then you act as if Jindal converting to Catholicism is what makes him unpopular with them instead of the R next to his name.

    Rand Paul has gone out to communities of color. He’s still roundly rejected by black people even after they just listened to him speak about mass incarceration and institutional racism. The idea that all a Republican has to do is reach out to these minority groups and they’ll hear them out is false. People have ingrained biases related to politics that usually prevent that.

    1. Its not false. Rand Paul is doing the right FIRST STEP in actually going to those neighborhoods. The SECOND STEP is to actually shut your piehole and listen – rather than make a speech on what you think is the big issue (tailored mostly for how that will appear on the media outside that neighborhood) and disappear. The THIRD STEP is to figure out how you can actually address the issues that they have – and then speak to them. The FOURTH STEP is to get the party itself to make those a serious issue.

      The last white GOP pol who really did that honestly in minority neighborhoods was probably Jack Kemp – but it’s gonna take a lot more than one dead pol who got to the third step 30 years ago to actually see an effect now. Minority GOP candidates have usually proven that yes Virginia any pol can do those steps – but they are usually doing those steps with white voters where white voters are the majority they need to get elected. Skin color or ethnicity itself is not gonna perform some magic trick – not for any pol for any group of voters now.

      1. So your claim is that Rand Paul isn’t listening, isn’t trying to address the issues, and isn’t trying to get the party to think about them?

        What, exactly, is it he hasn’t heard? What issue hasn’t he addressed? Give examples. Don’t just play the “you don’t get it” card. Communication goes two ways.

        1. Of course he didn’t listen. He went there to make a speech. It’s what pols do. But when you’re heading into a new area with a new demographic pols have to restrain themselves and learn instead of teach/preach/speech.

          What do you seriously expect from a couple of speeches? Is his audience is just a bunch of poodles barking for a biscuit? If he is serious, then he knows he is early in a process that takes a long time. If Kemp’s example has lessons, its gonna take more than just one pol doing it. Kemp had more influence than Rand Paul does – and he failed at the 4th step.

          Honestly, I don’t think the GOP has enuf pols who are interested in anything more than me-too’ing in minority communities. I live in a city that is less majority-minority than most but still near-majority-minority. The Dems have 100% of power and have been at/near that for idk 40 years. The Dems don’t win because they are competent or pandering. They win because the local GOP is a bunch of out-of-touch rich clowns. Instead of even trying, they send (lots of) money to GOP candidates elsewhere – and turn the electable GOP into RINO’s.

          The Libertarian Party has a better chance of becoming competitive in most minority/urban areas than the GOP does. All they have to do is decide that they want to become a political party rather than a church.

          1. The Libertarian Party has a better chance of becoming competitive in most minority/urban areas than the GOP does. All they have to do is decide that they want to become a political party rather than a church.

            What color is the sky in your world?

            1. Don’t believe me? You go to a local GOP in most cities and figure out how likely they are to win a local election – with 50% precinct captain vacancies. And you have zero chance of just taking them over (because they are powerful nationally cuz their campaign donations).

              1. What do libertarians have to offer to urbanites? And how come in these big Democratic cities (many of whom have “non-partisan” elections) libertarians can’t get elected to city council? And that the last two Republican mayors of New York City are not liked by Reasonoids?

      2. You don’t think politicians, esp. ones w the resources of a U.S. senator, employ staffs & consultants whose jobs are to listen to constituents & potential voters, & to figure out how to address those issues? I’m sure Randy P. does that.

        1. I’m sure they employ consultants and commission polls and figure out which manipulative blipverts will work on a mass audience. Except of course that they FAIL to get minority votes. Because the Dems have that stuff too – and they also knock on doors and go into every neighborhood in a city. The GOP fails in cities because they don’t even try.

          I hope Rand Paul persists. But honestly – street cred in urban black communities ain’t gonna help him much politically in Kentucky (the 6th least urban state and the 10th least minority state). So either this is a Presidential thang or he is a hopeless idealist.

    2. Rand Paul went to communities of color and lectured at them that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

      You can’t expect a political movement based on white racial resentment to appeal to minorities with nice words. Sorry. Minorities aren’t as dumb as Republicans need them to be.

      1. Rand Paul went to communities of color and lectured at them that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

        Even if true (spoiler: it’s not), that means Rand Paul has seen probably 10 times more black people this year than Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have in their entire lifetimes.

        You can’t blame Republicans for thinking that some token words to minority communities are all that is necessary to win them over. They’re just aping the successful Democratic strategy. If they follow up the meaningless stump speeches with passing lots of laws that disproportionately harm minorities economically they’ll have it down pat.

      2. “White racial resentment…”
        I see you still subscribe to the “if I say it enough times, it becomes true” theory of epistemology?

      3. You can’t expect a political movement based on white racial resentment of whites to appeal to minorities whites with nice words.

        59% of the white vote went for Romney in 2012. So I guess white people aren’t as dumb as Democrats need them to be.

  17. Hand on the mouth Indians or finger to the forehead Indians?

    1. Slurpee or casino?

  18. Ms. Dalmia, you usually zero in on the significa of a story, but do you have any evidence that voters, let alone East Indian-American ones, give an aeronatic sex-coupling about what you wrote about in the linked piece?

  19. Right, who cares how awful the Republicans are. All that matters is that they’re too white, hetero, and male! Just give me some nice brown transsexual authoritarians, please!

    It’s dumb shit like this that makes me want to give up any hope for humanity.

  20. most minorities are easily manipulated by racist demagogues. Conservative and libertarian minorities aren’t. Conservative and libertarian minority candidates aren’t racist demagogues. That’s why.

  21. One other possibility, the problem s with minorities. Any one who votes with the Democrats is not someone who seems reasonable yo me.

  22. Hinduism is a pretty shitty religion, directly responsible for the whole caste system India has by justifying it with reincarnation.

    Poor? Lower caste? Well, you deserve it for your actions in your past life.

    At least Islam, while somewhat Arab supremacist, is largely an egalitarian faith, and you get judged on your own actions, not some imaginary ones.

    Though with that said, Catholicism isn’t much better, with that original sin crap. Guess that’s why Jindal liked it instead of Christianity.

    1. At least Islam, while somewhat Arab supremacist, is largely an egalitarian faith

      Lol.

      Yes, as long as you’re okay with facing the gallows for failing to convert, or paying protection money and having no political rights in exchange for practicing an alternative religion, Islam is just egalitarian as fuck.

      Also, there is no distinction between “Catholicism” and “Christianity”, and the protestant denominations all subscribe in one form or another to an original sin concept.

      1. Also, there is no distinction between “Catholicism” and “Christianity”

        That’s not completely accurate. While all Catholics are by definition Christian, nowhere near all Christians are Catholic.

      2. At least Islam, while somewhat Arab supremacist, is largely an egalitarian faith

        Well, unless you’re a woman. Or not a Muslim. Or the wrong kind of Muslim.

  23. If you choose your leaders on the basis of their religion, race, or any other social signaling bullsjit. You are a cunting, idiotic, douchebag.

    Pirates vote on who will get the job done.

    FUCK OFF.

    That is all.

    1. It never ceases to amuse that in these times we live in, retards like Tony up there who dictate the dominant narrative are trying to convince the world that this sentiment, the idea of making decisions irrespective of a person’s race, is the racist standpoint.

      We have to ‘color-brave, not colorblind’ as renowned halfwit Eric Holder said. Seriously, how the fuck can a person say that and not be shouted down immediately?

  24. Ah yes, another Reason comment thread where pointing out the GOP’s increasingly poor performance with various ethnic and religious minority groups is met with shrieking denunciations blaming it all on Democrats giving handouts to these groups. Of course, this completely fails to explain why South Asians, East Asians, and Muslims used to vote closer to 50-50 for the two parties but started increasingly leaning Democratic only around the late 1990s (George H.W. Bush won majorities of all of these groups in 1992; George W. Bush still won a majority of Muslim votes as recently as 2000) and then went off a cliff in the 2000s. The sheer level of willful blindness required to pretend that nothing has changed in the Republican party over the last 25 years that might just be a bit alienating to those minority groups is truly amazing.

    1. Neither with Asians nor with Muslims does it appear to be an issue of race. Explain to me where the Republicans are supporting anti-Asian policies?

      No, with Muslims it’s foreign policy/security policy that most likely turns them off. With Asians, it’s social policy, and the fact that the GOP more or less identifies as a Christian party, and most east Asians and Indians are not Christian.

      Again, between the two parties, the Dems are the ones who use the most racialized rhetoric to avoid actual relevant discussions, because for some reason it is still socially acceptable for them to stir up racial antagonism unabashedly among their constituents.

      1. I didn’t claim that the Republicans were expressly supporting “anti-Asian policies.” Your point about the “GOP more or less identifies as a Christian party” is what I would actually pick as probably being the biggest factor in alienating all the groups I identified, followed by sloppy anti-immigration rhetoric. (Yes, I know, it’s “only” about illegal immigrants, but quite a few of the critiques, e.g., “why do I have to ‘press # 1 for English,'” are pretty clearly attacks on immigrants in general, not specifically those who don’t have the right paperwork.)

    2. The sheer level of willful blindness required to pretend that nothing has changed in the Republican party over the last 25 years that might just be a bit alienating to those minority groups is truly amazing.

      OK, what has changed? What racist policies or rhetoric is the GOP now promoting, that it didn’t used to?

      Provide examples, pls. With dates.

      Correlation, OK, sure, maybe. Causation requires something more. Its possible that the drift of non-whites to the Democrats, after all, happened in spite of the Republicans, not because of them, you know.

  25. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    =============================
    try this site ????? http://www.workweb40.com
    =============================

  26. Dalmia, you’ve just reached the singularity of stupid. Your entire argument rests on ignoring the fact that minorities trend significantly left of center. And even those that are conservative trend toward authoritarian conservatism. Getting candidates that have “broad appeal in their own communities” would mean selecting candidates that don’t reflect Republican values and reflect libertarian values even less.

  27. Tunku’s Hindu pride and Jindal’s creepy evangelism make for a startling contrast.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.