And only 25% of the Jewish vote, which puts the silly rhetoric about the Iraq war being part of a “NeoCon” conspiracy to support Israel into perspective.
And only 25% of the Jewish vote, which puts the silly rhetoric about the Iraq war being part of a “NeoCon” conspiracy to support Israel into perspective.[/quote]
I guess those aren’t the correct minorities then, in some peoples’ minds. 
What has the left done to attract more rich white men?
I don’t think the argument was about him being happy or not, but if it matters I wouldn’t be happy either to live in a rough neighbourhood where people are getting killed, say for example like in some ghettos in US cities.
Since Dick Cheney is related to Obama, why isn’t he helping his folks in Kenya? Come on Dick. Pony up some dough for the relatives.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]
I really do find the Republican tactics in this area to be quite offensive, and I stand by the overall point. It’s only ‘inconvenient’ to have a poor, black, African relative if one looks down on the poor, blacks, and/or Africans, and it’s certainly also hypocritical of some of the 'pubs to criticize Obama for not supporting some poor relative in Africa when they do nothing but create tax cuts for the rich, and screw the poor every chance they get.[/quote]
Well you missed Cindy McCain’s speech last night as she “trotted” out two Africans from war-torn nations who in their words epitomizes the power of forgiveness and that whole self-reliance theme…Before this election I didn’t even think the GOP knew that Africa had people…(read:sarcasm)
That relation only come from his mother’s side, which means Dick should be ponying up some dough for those in Kansas who’ve lost their homes, jobs, and healthcare… 
The point is not whether or not some Republicans are racist; the point is that the Republican leadership made a conscious decision to appeal to racism with Dick Nixon’s Southern strategy, and have stuck to it ever since. Not only the attacks on McCain in South Carolina, but also the decision by Bush to make his first appearance there at the most well-known segregation academy in the South (his only embarrassment happened when he discovered that Bob Jones, like the Rev. Hagee, hated Catholics as much as he hated Coloreds.)
From Chewycorn’s favorite Republican strategist:
[quote]You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”[/quote]
BTW, John McCain has just hired one of the main Bush Republican strategists responsible for the 2000 South Carolina smear campaign against him and his family.
“So what if he shit all over my family? He’ll help me get to be President, and what’s standing up for my wife and child compared to that?”
The guy’s assignment? Coaching Sarah Palin.
[quote=“Namahottie”]
Well you missed Cindy McCain’s speech last night as she “trotted” out two Africans from war-torn nations who in their words epitomizes the power of forgiveness and that whole self-reliance theme…Before this election I didn’t even think the GOP knew that Africa had people….(read:sarcasm)[/quote]
Growing and healing are we now? Read: sarcasm.
[quote]
The Iraq war may have turned George Bush into a hate-figure for many a vociferous celebrity, but he was the subject of warm words from Bob Geldof yesterday.
The Irish singer and anti-poverty campaigner heaped praise on the US President for having “completely altered the landscape” of American policy on Africa.
After a meeting with the commander-in-chief, Geldof expressed his delight at how Bush’s knowledge of Africa has grown during his time in the White House.
“At one point, I was saying to him ‘you sound like an activist, Mr President. Don’t come to us looking for a job when you leave office’,” he said.[/quote]
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/jonathan_i … ge_w_bush_
Wouldn’t it be great if people would stop demonizing other people to suit their selfish political purposes and or agendas?
You ready for that kind of an attitude change? Looking at the candidates’ convention speeches, they’d all need a re-write, but the Republicans’ would’ve have much left to start over with.
You ready for that kind of an attitude change? Looking at the candidates’ convention speeches, they’d all need a re-write, but the Republicans’ would’ve have much left to start over with.[/quote]
Am I ready? Yes, actually.
Changing WASHINGTON is very very hard. Admit it. You like metaphors Jeff, so imagine Mario Cuomo’s “Ship of State” speech at Clinton’s first convention. Political parties change. They do so because they lose common ground with their constituents.
I mentioned today that I agreed with Micheal Moore. He said people don’t like being categorized anymore. Right. Left. Whatever.
I don’t think that we will see one or both of these “parties” in the near future.
If you want my personal opinion, the Democratic Party is MUCH more susceptible to fading away…
[quote=“Surly”]I mentioned today that I agreed with Michael Moore. He said people don’t like being categorized anymore. Right. Left. Whatever.[/quote]And who speaks to that?
Why so? Parties are more likely to fade away when there’s a large number of them. You’ve got two. Makes splintering more likely than fading. Of the two, the Dems are more loosely knit, and therefore more resilient. The GOP’s split between fiscal conservatives and culture warriors; realists and neocon chickenhawks. Makes for trouble: If the culture warriors aren’t complaining that there concerns are being dropped once elections are won, then it’s moderates walking away in disgust over the ‘policies’ of ‘the crazies’.
What would cause the Dems to go to war with themselves? What are they THAT tied to, and divided over? Where would their supporters go? On the other side, I can easily imagine a TheoCon party, or a stronger Libertarian party splintering off of the GOP.
I think it would be easy for the REP party to splinter into factions. However, their umm, enormous success in recent elections might preclude them from doing so.
The DEMs? Gosh…the earth, the economy, the war, the bushate, etc…they seem too fucked up to even disagree…
Exactly. Too scattered to decently go to war with themselves. Whereas those further right… like far left parties… split and turn on each other more often than Protestant churches, and hate each other more for it.
We went through something similar in the Great White North, with dedicated conservatives fracturing into three parties. That gave the Liberals a decade of easy sailing. Two of the three parties later merged, have managed to capture a minor gov’t, and are on the verge of a thin minority… but they’d dance away with it if the third part were reabsorbed.
[quote=“Jaboney”]Exactly. Too scattered to decently go to war with themselves. Whereas those further right… like far left parties… split and turn on each other more often than Protestant churches, and hate each other more for it.
We went through something similar in the Great White North, with dedicated conservatives fracturing into three parties. That gave the Liberals a decade of easy sailing. Two of the three parties later merged, have managed to capture a minor gov’t, and are on the verge of a thin minority… but they’d dance away with it if the third part were reabsorbed.[/quote]
Jeff, seriously…stop talking to me…they are out there. You’re only legitimizing me!
Back away!
Well, again, my post was over the top, and I do apologize to any of our Republican posters here who are not in fact racist. I should not have referred to “Republicans” as racist and should have instead said “some Republicans, the effects of a number Republican policies, and frequent Republican campaign tactics–such as caging minority voters (drives to challenge recently registered voters, in an effort to prevent voting by the poor and minorities); letters only a couple years ago to minority voters telling them (falsely) that if they’re immigrants (we’re talkin’ naturalized Hispanics here), they can’t vote; ads showing white hands crumpling a job application, while a voice decries the fact that a minority got the job; Bush’s campaign 8 years ago spreading rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black child; and now Obama being criticized for having poor black relatives in Africa”.
My bad.
[quote=“Dragonbones”]Well, again, my post was over the top, and I do apologize to any of our Republican posters here who are not in fact racist. I should not have referred to “Republicans” as racist and should have instead said “some Republicans, the effects of a number Republican policies, and frequent Republican campaign tactics–such as caging minority voters (drives to challenge recently registered voters, in an effort to prevent voting by the poor and minorities); letters only a couple years ago to minority voters telling them (falsely) that if they’re immigrants (we’re talkin’ naturalized Hispanics here), they can’t vote; ads showing white hands crumpling a job application, while a voice decries the fact that a minority got the job; Bush’s campaign 8 years ago spreading rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black child; and now Obama being criticized for having poor black relatives in Africa”.
My bad.[/quote]
Don’t forget the Willie Horton and Welfare Queen ads of 1988, the ads against Harold Ford in 2006, the racist statements of Limbaugh, Boortz and their ilk, etc.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“Dragonbones”]Well, again, my post was over the top, and I do apologize to any of our Republican posters here who are not in fact racist. I should not have referred to “Republicans” as racist and should have instead said “some Republicans, the effects of a number Republican policies, and frequent Republican campaign tactics–such as caging minority voters (drives to challenge recently registered voters, in an effort to prevent voting by the poor and minorities); letters only a couple years ago to minority voters telling them (falsely) that if they’re immigrants (we’re talkin’ naturalized Hispanics here), they can’t vote; ads showing white hands crumpling a job application, while a voice decries the fact that a minority got the job; Bush’s campaign 8 years ago spreading rumors that McCain had an illegitimate black child; and now Obama being criticized for having poor black relatives in Africa”.
My bad.[/quote]
Don’t forget the Willie Horton and Welfare Queen ads of 1988, the ads against Harold Ford in 2006, the racist statements of Limbaugh, Boortz and their ilk, etc.[/quote]Honestly, I don’t believe either the party nor anything approaching a majority of the party membership is racist. On the contrary, I’d suggest that Republican ideology is largely blind to racial issues – and that such is the root of much of the problem. An ideology heavy on individual responsibility, one that largely ignores social conditions, isn’t going to speak well to those disadvantaged by stigma.
As for the tactics outlined above, they’re electoral tactics, designed with an awareness of where the party draws its power from, and to minimize input from other sectors. That they happen to target these minorities is likely incidental; they’re designed to capture power, that’s all. I still find such tactics and practices disgraceful, but see that their effects may be the same as racial-inspired ones without being driven by race.
[quote=“Jaboney”]
Honestly, I don’t believe either the party nor anything approaching a majority of the party membership is racist. On the contrary, I’d suggest that Republican ideology is largely blind to racial issues – and that such is the root of much of the problem. An ideology heavy on individual responsibility, one that largely ignores social conditions, isn’t going to speak well to those disadvantaged by stigma.
As for the tactics outlined above, they’re electoral tactics, designed with an awareness of where the party draws its power from, and to minimize input from other sectors. That they happen to target these minorities is likely incidental; they’re designed to capture power, that’s all. I still find such tactics and practices disgraceful, but see that their effects may be the same as racial-inspired ones without being driven by race.[/quote]
Very well said, sir.
You make a reasonable point, sir, but I think we should all be aware that racism is alive and well in the USA, and I, for one, see such tactics, as well as some of the GOP’s policies, primarily as a manifestation of this racism. Ok, some of them may just be to win at any cost, but when you target Hispanic voters with fraudulent letters designed to intimidate them into not voting, the very fact that the tactic targets a minority group makes it racist. Criticizing Palin as incapable of leading because she’s got kids (when no such criticism is ever leveled at men with kids) is sexist, period, even if the intent is merely ‘to win’ rather than ‘to put down women’.
In other words, just because the end (winning) isn’t inherently bigoted doesn’t mean that one isn’t a bigot for using bigoted tactics towards that end. IMHO.
Indeed… and I see it alive and well among the legions of voters in Pittsburgh registered as democrats. But, that isn’t what makes the democratic party a racist party, IMO.
I agree with jaboney’s remarks above.
Does it?
Witnesses to a purse-snatching tell the police that the man who took the woman’s purse was a white guy… are the police being “racist” when they target, stop and search only white guys?
And as jaboney commented, most GOP policies do not take race in to account… by contrast, the Democratic party does take race in to account in a good number of policies and tactics. Does the very fact that the Democratic party has policies and tactics that target a minority group make the Democratic party “racist”?