Republican Presidential Nomination

Why the GOP's Rainbow Presidential Lineup Won't Solve its Minority Problem

It keeps picking candidates like Jindal with little credibility in their own communities

|

Diversity
andres mustas Foter

The only thing that could bring more color to the multi-hued field of GOP presidential aspirants would be Caitlyn Jenner (a self-identified conservative) in a red swimsuit. Yet even such a diverse lineup might not help the GOP with minority voters whom it desperately needs to win the White House in 2016. And the reason is that the GOP has a knack for zeroing in on unpopular minority candidates who lack broad appeal in their own communities and are therefore poor ambassadors for the Republican Party.

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.

One of the little-noticed political developments in the last four years is that the GOP, the party of whitebreads, has made far bigger strides than Democrats in promoting minorities to high political office. Writer John Avlon pointed out after the 2012 elections that although Democrats had placed more minorities in the House, the opposite was the case in the Senate.

The sole black person in the Senate at that time was a Republican (South Carolina's Tim Scott).* Only one Democratic senator (Robert Menendez) was a Hispanic compared to two Republicans (Rubio and Cruz). Even more remarkably, Republicans have two Hispanics (Brian Sandoval in Nevada and Susana Martinez in New Mexico) and two Indian Americans (Nikki Haley in South Carolina and Jindal in Louisiana) in gubernatorial mansions. The Democratic Party? Zero on both counts.

But none of this is expected to translate into minority votes for the GOP, something at least New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie understands, given that he lambasted Republicans last week for being insufficiently "welcoming to minority voters."

Other conservatives, however, blame Republicans' difficulties on the minorities themselves or their alleged love for Big Government handouts and affirmative action.

But whatever (little) explanatory power this line of thinking might have with regard to Hispanics and blacks, it has none for Indian Americans. They, after all, happen to have the highest median income of any ethnic group in the country and therefore don't rely on welfare. Nor do they like to pay high taxes. What's more, along with Chinese Americans they suffer even more from affirmative action quotas than white Americans. (It is not a coincidence that a Chinese American last month filed a federal complaint against Harvard University for discriminatory admission practices.)

One would think, therefore, that naked class interest would incline them to vote Republican. But, typically, 65 percent of Indian Americans vote Democratic (and a whopping 85 percent voted for Barack Obama)—comparable to Hispanics, blacks, and Jews, another comparatively wealthy minority.

It would seem that a Republican like Jindal would be a perfect candidate to turn things around. 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? Because what it takes for a desi to succeed as a Republican—if Jindal is a model—is immensely off-putting.

First, of course, is the matter of his religious conversion from Hinduism to Catholicism. This in itself wouldn't be a deal-breaker for most Indian Americans, even though about 51 percent of them happen to be Hindu. Jindal converted when he was still in high school, so not even the most cynical think it was a political move. However, the way he has deployed his adopted faith, using it to get closer to conservative Christian Americans while distancing himself from his birth community to advance his career, is another matter.

Consider his commencement speech to Liberty University, the largest Evangelical college in the world, last year, in which he addressed the liberal attack on the religious liberty of Christians. Given the topic, he could have mentioned that what's great about America is that, just like the original pioneers, folks like his parents come to America because it offers them economic opportunities without requiring them to abandon their faith. He movingly – and hilariously—recounted how he discovered the word of Christ by secretly reading the Bible in a closet. But he might have also noted that although he gave up his original faith, his parents and siblings continued to practice it, thanks to America's guarantee of religious freedom for all.

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. He could have emphasized the points of agreement between the two—noting that if Hinduism's inherent pluralism gives it something in common with America's founding principles, its emphasis on piety gives it something in common with devout Christians.

None of this would take away one iota from his new faith, while also expanding the space for his old one. He could build bridges, instead of erecting walls. This would make him a hero to Indian-Americans and also broaden his appeal to political independents and even progressives. Instead, he has studiously avoided answering questions about his previous religious life as if it embarrassed him. More recently, he has even expressed exasperation with "hyphenated identities" because, evidently, they come in the way of full-blooded assimilation in American life.

No doubt Jindal has taken this tack because he feels that anything less would jeopardize his standing with his Christian base. But 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.

This sounds hokey, but hokey acceptance is far preferable to an authentic rejection. When minority Republicans feel less need to distance themselves from their roots, minorities will feel less need to distance themselves from Republicans. But not until then.

A version of column originally appeared in The Week

*Update: Since then, Democrat Cory Booker, the former black mayor of New Jersey, has been elected to the Senate in a special election

Advertisement

NEXT: Everything you ever wanted to know about ignorance, but were afraid to ask - the "Routledge International Handbook of Ignorance Studies"

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. 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.

    If you think Democrats give a fuck about “immigrant contributions to the great American mosaic” you’re dumber than dirt.

    1. one needn’t give a fuck in order to pay homage as a political tool.

  2. This article sounds even less well-thought out now than the last time it was posted.

    1. tl;dr:

      Ethnic groups only vote for “their guy” when they pander. Thus – Democrats.

    2. Yeah, what’s up with Reason reposting articles as new? It was shitty a week ago and, well I’ll be Goddamned, it’s shitty now.

  3. I work around various high skilled, upper middle class immigrants. By and large, they disagree with the GOP stance on Immigration. However, Immigration is roughly 6th priority on their list of top five issues. Most want more funding for schools, cradle to grave healthcare, mass transit up the kazoo, gun control and various other government interventions.

    Whether I am around various flavors of European, Chinese and/or Indians, by and large their base political philosophy starts with the assumption that Government’s job is to take around 50% of GDP and spend it on the citizens. Their “right vs left” divide is on how nationalistic that spending should be and whether we should move that 50% up or down another 5% or so.

    The idea that the GOP is going to win these people in droves with a pro immigration stance is just pure fantasy. But it would be easy for Ms Dalmia to prove her or my position- let’s just see the political attitudes polled for these groups apart from their expectations around Immigration. I suspect she doesn’t do this, because she knows it will undermine her argument.

    1. I think this is about right. Liberalizing our immigration laws may very well be the right thing to do (I tend to think it is). But, pretending that supporting it would be good politics for the GOP is ridiculous. Most of the world has a significantly more leftish or statist outlook than the U.S. Bringing in more people with that outlook is not going to be a political winner for the party that (even ostensibly) supports free enterprise and limited government.

      1. Most of the world has a significantly more leftish or statist outlook than the U.S. Bringing in more people with that outlook is not going to be a political winner for the party that (even ostensibly) supports free enterprise and limited government.

        People seem to think that culture doesn’t matter in shaping the norms, practices and laws that govern society. If you suddenly transported half of the world’s non-European population to the US, it would be a full blown statist shithole (moreso anyways) in less than a decade. I don’t see how that would even be up for debate. It’s not about race, but about the culture those people bring with them. And aside from Confucianism in the far east, I can’t think of any philosophies outside of European origin that may predominate in a society that is conducive to capital accumulation and justice in human interaction.

    2. It has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with entitlements.

      Although the coming fiscal implosion is really going to suck I would like it to happen sooner rather than later so the fucks that think the government owes them something can get the 2×4 to the forehead they deserve. Maybe a few will even wake up to reality.

    3. This is a little strange to me. All of the Asians that I know are more of conservative Republicans. The Indians I know do not care about politics at all, you can’t even get them to really discuss it.

      But all of the legal immigrants I know are not in favor of more entitlements, probably because they’re the ones helping to pay for them, not the ones receiving.

      Also know quite a few immigrants who are more against illegal immigration than most American citizens that I know.

      I don’t think the potential issue is with skilled immigrants who migrate here and start businesses or work in professional careers. The issue is that the Democrats want to make uneducated non-skilled migrant workers legal so that they can vote and get government benefits. I mean they come right out and say that this would result in a permanent majority for team blue. And at this point, team really doesn’t even matter as it’s getting more and more apparent that the teams are merging into one giant purple beast that promise the voters anything and then when elected, forget about the voters and collude to give themselves more power.

      1. I will 2nd this Hyperion. I’m Indian, but my parents emigrated here before I was born. To a tee, all of our family friends vote Republican.

        I am pretty sure Overt has never eaten lunch in a doctor’s lounge in a hospital. They are filled with “upper middle class immigrants” who are strongly Republican.

      2. I have sponsored people from the Caribbean and they are, were very GOPish. The idea of working ,buying a home saving their money, deciding more or less on their schooling was paramount. Immigration is important to the US, but on our terms moreso than illegals, some of the so called dreamers or undocumented. The entitlement culture is rot. A government bootheel beyond the pale.

    4. Whether I am around various flavors of European, Chinese and/or Indians, by and large their base political philosophy starts with the assumption that Government’s job is to take around 50% of GDP and spend it on the citizens.

      Pretty much this. Most immigrants come from countries with very “progressive” if not outright socialist governments and they bring those views with them.

      Kind of like how Californians bring their retarded proggie, economically illiterate politics with them when they move to another state because they can’t find a job in CA because their retarded, economically illiterate politics have fucked things up in CA.

    5. Whoever changes the political agenda re immigration and turns it around is gonna win the issue.

      The issue really isn’t about more immigration or less immigration.
      It isn’t even so much about legal (or managed) v illegal (or unmanaged) immigration

      The issue really is about assimilation v multiculturalism. Whether the goal of the US is to try to replicate our historic achievement (immigration for the long-term purposes of citizenship). Or whether our goal is to create a transient mobile Balkans where no one ‘trusts’ outside the kin group

    6. In my group of six at the office, I’m the only one who is not an immigrant.

      Croatia (His family left a year or two before the SHTF), Ukraine (USSR when she emigrated), Mexico, India, and Vietnam (sailed on a tiny fishing boat to Malaysia or Indonesia)

      All have been here 20 years or more and are naturalized.

      Those who came from Communist countries take a rather dim view of anything resembling socialism, particularly the woman from Ukraine.
      The Indian was a big Ron Paul fan in 2012 which should say more than enough about him.

      My Mexican coworker I could never tell if he shared the rest of the teams views or if he just went along to get along. I would say he’s not hard core prog as they’d never back down from an argument about the glories of socialism.

      As far as immigration, none really have a problem with loosening restrictions. Talk of amnesty ticks them off.

    7. Most want more funding for schools, cradle to grave healthcare, mass transit up the kazoo, gun control and various other government interventions.

      In other words, they want the things that made their native countries so intolerable they left.

      1. That may well be true for many. They knew something had to be wrong to have made things so bad, but they didn’t know what, & still don’t. So they just continue operating on the assumptions that imbued their previous environment.

    8. Statistics show that Mitt Romney would have had to double his support among Hispanics to have had a chance, – anyone see that happening in a group that wants lots of government intervention? – while a mere 4% rise in the white vote would have put him over the top – in key states, of course.
      Not a minority problem, a dumb-ass white guilt problem.

  4. I’m way past sick of listening to people divide other people up by race, gender, nationality, skin color, sexual preference, etc, etc, etc.

    This is what progressives do, not libertarians. Is this HuffPo?I could have sworn I clicked the link for Reason.

    1. Is this HuffPo?I could have sworn I clicked the link for Reason.

      No, it’s Dalmiatown. Forget about it Hyperion.

    2. This year’s buzzwords are “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “open mindedness” which means talking about petty differences…

      all…

      the…

      god…

      damn…

      fucking…

      time. *beats head against wall* Dems have started talking about it so much that now the GOP has to pay it lip service to maintain any kind of relevance.

      1. I hate it, too, but if we have any chance of toppling the Anointed One, we may have to play the game a little. Especially in a climate where the “All Lives Matter” folks are the ones catching hell.

      2. That’s just your white male cis-hetero shitlord privelege talking.

    3. Afuckingmen

  5. This article is still dumb, dalmia.

  6. “Other conservatives, however, blame Republicans’ difficulties on the minorities themselves or their alleged love for Big Government handouts and affirmative action.”

    I’ve a feeling most of the blame falls on the MSM, who still love to push the narrative that the Democrats are the melting pot of America, and the GOP is strictly lily-white men.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP debate qualification guidelines managed to “coincidentally” filter out Jindal, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina and Rubio. “Hey, our rules were pretty sensible, it’s not our fault the televised debate’s gonna consist of only white guys!”

  7. Why the GOP’s Rainbow Presidential Lineup Won’t Solve its Minority Problem

    Something something false consiousness… mumble mumble “Uncle Toms”… yada yada race and/or gender traitors…

  8. BTW, Shikha: show me on the doll where Bobby Jindal touched you…

    1. ^^ yeah, totally this

    2. Interesting that you’d demand a reason why a libertarian writer might not care for a statist so con like Jindal.

      1. Shut the fuck up, Tulpa. Nobody cares what you think.

        1. I’m Tulpa now? Whatever.

          1. I thought you were Spartacus.

            No, wait – I’m Spartacus!

            1. Is this the Spartacus with the homoerotic Tony Curtis scene or the Showtime boob-fest?

      2. 1) This is at least the 2nd or 3rd article Dalmia’s written bitching about Jindal.
        2) She specifically has attacked him for converting to Catholicism from Hindu-ism. I would think that an alledgedly libertarian writer would support an individual’s right to convert to the religion of one’s choice, yet she seems to have an awefully large bug up her ass over it for someone who’s supposedely a libertarian.
        3) Along those same lines she seems to be demanding that Bobby Jindal do more to “demistify Hindu-ism” for all us intolerant crackers. Why the fuck should he? It’s not his job as a politician running for president to do that, especially for a religion he doesn’t believe in anymore. Perhaps, if Shikha is really that concerned with promoting more understanding with regards to Hindu-ism, she should write some articles doing that herself instead of demanding that Bobby Jindal do something.
        4) As for Jindal being a “statist so con”, I don’t have to agree with all of his positions to recognize an idiotic attack like what Shikha’s written here and defend him from it. If she attacked him for being a statist and a cronyist for instance, I wouldn’t be complaining.
        5) Last but not least, shut the fuck up and eat your cake, retard.

  9. Maybe Jindal needs to speak with a thicker Apu accent?

    1. Yeah, I think this is pretty close to Dalmia’s problem with Jindal. He’s “gone native”, which is bad enough. But, having a star resume and going native just makes him intolerable.

    2. She’s seriously reprimanding him for not talking to voters (99% of whom are not Indians) enough about the nuances of Hindu religious beliefs. I mean what does a politician have to lose by spending his reelection campaigns beating dead horses that no one cares about, or even might generate some unnecessarily negative press?

      Dalmia is the Queen of Dead Horse beatings. That and ridiculous political analyses that are just laughable.

  10. He could have used his familiarity with both to demystify Hinduism to his adopted community.

    Really? This is what potential candidates for some office are supposed to do? ”

    Shorter Dalmia: “I don’t like Bobby Jindal for something something “Keepin’ it Real” so no Indian transplants like Bobby Jindal.”

    Oh – it’s Shikhatown. Forget it…

    1. Christ, she really did say that. Because a guy who converted to a different religion in high school has a responsibility to “demystify” a religion he hasn’t practiced in 25 years. Way to shoot for peak derp.

      1. That’s the point of running for office right? Demystifying foreign religions that nearly no one in your electorate is affiliated with or cares about. What an idiot for not focusing on the nuances of Hindu.

        1. More to the point, it isn’t even his religion.

  11. Prohibition is polling at 53% against. Med pot is polling at 80% in favor.

    And Republicans? 80% favor Prohibition.

    Do the math.

    1. I was told there would be no math.

      1. Somebody has to count the votes and add the totals.

        1. Count the votes? Can you even check that your single vote was counted the way you cast it? What was it Lysander called these elections?

    2. There’s different strains of republicans. The NR/Instapundit types would be largely pro legalization (or at least anti-WOD) even if they don’t care for pot. I believe that’s been NR’s stance for many decades.

      The Weekly Standard/Bill O’Reilly republicans are the ones that I dislike – neocon/statist.

  12. The GOP likes minority candidates that tell the older white males that dominate the party everything they like to hear and think about minorities. It makes that uncomfortable feeling derived from the near lack of minority support for those views lessen a tad.

    1. As opposed to the young black women that dominate the DFL?

  13. Republicans are flamboyant in their appeal to shit-kickers and old-timey CEOs. They are also proven disasters at governing. It’s not that minorities are especially good at realizing this, it’s that said bumpkins and good ole boys are the last to do so.

    1. Both parties are disasters at governing, both for Americans generally and minorities particularly. The differential support lies in the fact that the GOP is more rhetorically offensive and tone deaf to minorities.

      1. It is highly improbable that two parties with nearly opposite positions on nearly every issue would be equally disastrous at governing. Relative to a utopian ideal, perhaps, but relative to each other, we have a clear winner, even if it’s faint praise considering the competition starts wars based on lies and destroys economies as a matter of routine.

        1. Sock puppet on sock puppet action!

        2. two parties with nearly opposite positions on nearly every issue

          Blue: Government spending should grow by 4% next year.
          Red: Commie! Socialist! Government spending should grow by 3.5% next year.
          Blue: MONSTER!!

          1. Isn’t it more like this?

            Blue: Govt spending should grow by 4% with most going to entitlements/welfare and our cronys

            Red: Govt spending should grow by 3.99999% with most going to defense and OUR cronys

        3. …both parties with nearly opposite – rhetoric – and virtually the same positions – on nearly every issue…..

          a little more accurate.

        4. It is highly improbable that two parties with nearly opposite positions on nearly every issue would be equally disastrous at governing.

          I suppose, if you considered the continual government growth as a small thing, this would be logical. However, it is huge, and the only relevant factor. And as we know, they are both near equal in their love of big government (in their actions if not their rhetoric).

          Governing is hard because telling other people what to do with their lives is more than any other person really knows. It is “The Fatal Conceit”.

          I can see how a big government lover could miss that once or twice, but it’s been proved to you hundreds of times.

          To put more succinctly, governing is disastrous, regardless of who tries it.

    2. I LOVE YOU SO MUCH YOU!!! YOU ARE SPECIAL AND DONT FORGET THAT!!!

    3. So I guess Tony thinks Obama is doing a great job? I’m not even gonna comment on that.

  14. Herbert Hoover’s veep was Amerindian, and peyote was banned even before their swearing-in in 1929.The 5 & 10 law made beer trafficking kingpins liable to 5 years and a $10,000 (gold) fine. Together they and the Methodist White Terror running Congress promptly increased prison overcrowding by 33%. If freedom means anything in politics it means freedom from coercion. Religious fanatics want political power precisely for purposes of having men with guns coerce people. This is the exact opposite of “the free exercise” protected by the First Amendment.

    1. Prohibition is not polling real well this year either.

  15. While Hoover and Curtis sent dry killers to kill and IRS agents to rob citizens in the name of Christianity, Mahatma Ghandi read Thoreau and led Indians in a nonagressive boycott of Britain’s Salt and Opium Regie taxes as George Orwell penned Burmese Days. Hoover was finally defeated after Maryland Senator Tydings (like Reason Magazine here) published expos?s of Prohibition Killings by officers and Pauline Sabin pointed out the similarities between the dry fanatics in control of the GOP and Mohammedans. Torturing pregnant women and jailing pot smokers is the exercise of coercive brutality backed by deadly force–not the free exercise of anything, it is the naked, cowardly superstition people came to America to escape.
    A real Indian American would sooner back an Islamic State than stoop to currish fawning over Republican National Socialism.

  16. How exactly are Republicans “unwelcoming to minorities”? They don’t pander along ethnic lines enough or what?

  17. Why the GOP’s Rainbow Presidential Lineup Won’t Solve its Minority Problem

    I eagerly await Shikha’s article on why the Dem’s Old, Lily-White Presidential Line-Up Won’t Solve Its White Problem.

    Because, if Repubs getting a minority of the, er, minority vote is a problem, why isn’t Dems getting a minority of the white vote not an equal problem?

    Kinda like how Repubs getting a minority of the female vote is a gender problem, but the Dems getting a reciprocal minority of the male vote is not.

    1. Yeah, I haven’t seen any MSM or proggy articles explaining why it’s okay that all of the Dem candidates/potential candidates are white and all but one are men because it’s the Teathuglikkkanz who are the RACEISTS.

    2. Because, if Repubs getting a minority of the, er, minority vote is a problem, why isn’t Dems getting a minority of the white vote not an equal problem?

      Because whites are stupid and evil and in demographic decline, which brown people everywhere should celebrate. Nothing racist about that sentiment.

  18. The GOP already has a fake Latino candidate. George Holy War Bush was de facto president of Mexico and had De La Madrid and Salinas licking the blacking off his boots when they were Republican puppets. His son Jeb Clampitt Bush is a perfect reverse coconut or Twinkie: ban abortion, death sentence and real estate forfeiture for grass pushers, nuke Mecca, install puppet cristianofascista dictatorships in every banana republic! No one is better equipped to be beaten by a girl and get some secular judges appointed to the courts.
    Election after that, after the GOP and Prohibition parties again merge into one and offer ban the teaching of Evolution–they can be excluded from the debates between the Democratic and Libertarian Party candidates.

    1. Hmmm….your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter

      1. OK, you can read libertariantranslator.com without paying, joining or letting the mask slip, but not all of it is in English.

  19. The GOP rightfully or wrongfully is considered by many to be a white man’s party. The GOP needs to fold and Democratic party to split between the more socialist and less socialist.

  20. A lot of immigrant countries are more statist about health care, but most also are more family oriented and conservatively ‘moral’ than North America.

    Chinese are used to big gov, but don’t like it. They are natural Republicans. Mexicans are family oriented, came here to get ahead, and are Catholic conservative – natural Republicans. Indians are smart and get ahead, they will convert to Republicanism.

    This is a one generation problem for the Repubs, and a one generation win for Dems.

    Jews – what is up with that? They should be Republicans, but aren’t.

    Blacks – They’re Dem forever. Too many are stuck in a time period that ended 20 years ago. NO ONE cares about skin color anymore, if the person is under 80 at least. And, they’re a big voting bloc.

  21. This just in: Dipshit is still a Dipshit.

  22. Isn’t Cory Booker still black? Did I miss something?

  23. Only Libertarians understand the minority’s problem – because they are the only ones who understand that each individual is a minority.

  24. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  25. A more important question is: Does Shikha Dalmia have credibility in her own community? She is vituperative towards the immensely popular Indian prime minister, calling him a neanderthal, and has derided Indian-American community’s reception of their Prime Minister at Madison Square Garden last year as “tacky” and “tasteless.” In comparison to Shikha’s supercilious pronouncements towards her fellow Indian-Americans, Jindal’s slights seem minor. So we must ask: is having a shrill like Shikha Dalmia on its payroll going to solve the libertarian movement’s minority problem, which is arguably worse than that of the Republican party.

    1. Good point. I’d never heard of her and thought the article poorly written and unconvincing. One of the candidates I supported in Austin ran against a looter gal the GOP runs from, and never identified himself as libertarian. He thought the welfare moochers would be put off in that poor and multicultural district. I imagined they and others would assume he was a God’s Own Party prohibitionist by default. His house was invaded by cops who “thought they’d smelt reefer” during the campaign, so at least they could clearly tell he wasn’t part of either soft machine.

  26. Why is Hinduism “regarded as a strange faith whose followers pray to multi-headed gods” and Christianity, who believes in three persons in one god, the father, the son and a holy ghost no less considered not strange?

    The reason the GOP’s current lineup won’t solve its minority problems is because socialism has the majority of the worlds’ population hoodwinked into believing socialism is the answer to the planets problems.

    IT’S ALL OVER FOLKS! And socialism has won.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.