From Tuesday’s Republican debate:
"What does it say that there is no woman, no Hispanic, no African-
American, no minority in this field of presidential candidates?"
From the U.S. census:
The nation’s minority population reached 100.7 million, according to the national and state estimates by race, Hispanic origin, sex and age released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. A year ago, the minority population totaled 98.3 million.
"About one in three U.S. residents is a minority," said Census Bureau Director Louis Kincannon. "To put this into perspective, there are more minorities in this country today than there were people in the United States in 1910. In fact, the minority population in the U.S. is larger than the total population of all but 11 countries."
…
Hispanic remained the largest minority group, with 44.3 million on July 1, 2006 — 14.8 percent of the total population. Black was the second-largest minority group, totaling 40.2 million in 2006. They were followed by Asian (14.9 million), American Indian and Alaska Native (4.5 million), and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (1 million). The population of non- Hispanic whites who indicated no other race totaled 198.7 million in 2006.
Or you can take the advice of Fox News host John Gibson and implore white Americans to “make more babies” to counter the growing Hispanic population.
O’Reilly gets all the press, but John Gibson really gives him a run for his money in saying bullshit like this. I remember reading that column of his and quietly reflecting on what a complete assbag he is.
“What does it say that there is no woman, no Hispanic, no African- American, no minority in this field of presidential candidates?”
It says that Republicans continue to be the party of inclusion, of course.
err… the Republican PARTY continues to be the party of inclusion, of course.
Funny, I thought Fox News was supposed to lob only softballs at the Republican candidates. You think Chris Matthews will ask John Edwards if the America in which he resides has an active hand in keeping the other America poor? Think he will ask, “What does it say that there is no pro-life candidate in this field of Presidential candidates?” No wonder the Dems wanted Fox out of the debates. It hurts to have to answer hard questions.
So now I guess I have to ask my usual question — name one, ONE, black Republican that the so-called “Black leadership” and the mainstream news media has supported and worked to keep in office. Just one. I’m waiting.
Mike -
Pro-life is an ideology. Race and gender are not.
And how many black Republican leaders can you name to begin with? Are you seriously suggesting that the “black leadership” should have jumped full force behind a nutcase like Alan Keyes? Michael Steele?
There are no black republican leaders. There are only black republican appointees. Republicans vote black people into office very, very seldom.
Pro-life is an ideology. Race and gender are not.
Are you sure?
Missed the link.
If THAT still doesn’t work, it’s to Barbara Walter’s interviews with transgender kids from 2 weeks ago. Their contention is … Gender is an ideology.
In extraordinary circumstances such as those you might put it that way. Possibly.
Returning to original issue now.
Not gender, then, but “sex.” I should know better than to mix those terms up.
Spider,
My point is simply this: it is difficult (though someone probably can dredge up some obscure example somewhere) of Republicans actively working to destroy the political careers of blacks or other racial minorities who are members of their party.
On the other hand, there are numerous continuing examples of Democrats and black “leaders” working feverishly to defeat virtually every black Republican who runs for office, as well as working feverishly to hamper the nomination of minority conservatives (remember Ted Kennedy’s leaked “he is Hispanic” memo?) or to visciously castigate them with racial slurs once they assume their appointed offices.
I loudly applaud any minority who chooses to run for office as a Republican, simply because it takes a lot of courage to face destruction by your own people.
As far as “nutjobs” go, yes Alan Keyes is very far out on the paleoconservative/libertarian limb. But if you want to discuss nutjobs, then you should be willing to discuss the likes of Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, each of whom — if not given an outright position of authority and leadership within the Democratic party — has at least received its tacit approval. The fact that kooks like Milwaukee alderman Michael McGee regularly bring large numbers of black votes to elections is probably not lost on the Democrats.
On the other hand, it will be interesting to see how the Democrats end up handling Barak Obama, whose authenticity as a “black American” has already been questioned numerous times in the mainstream media.
Which I suppose goes back to SaveFarris’ comment that race is as much an ideology as a genetic factor; e. g. liberals and black leaders denouncing Clarence Thomas and Condolezza Rice etc. as not really being black, but praising Bill Clinton as our first black president (because he got a little booty on the side and liked barbecue).
“What does it say that there is no pro-life candidate in this field of Presidential candidates?”
The fact that you’d equivocate a candidate’s stance on abortion with race and sex is absolutely delicious. It shows what a complete imbecile you are.
Democrats belong to the party of abortion rights. If there’s no “pro-life” candidate, it’s only reflective of the party’s position on the issue. Unless you’re suggesting that it’s a matter of Republican policy that there are microscopically-few minority/female players with any kind of power. In which case you might be right…
Spider,
My point is simply this: it is difficult (though someone probably can dredge up some obscure example somewhere) of Republicans actively working to destroy the political careers of blacks or other racial minorities who are members of their party.
On the other hand, there are numerous continuing examples of Democrats and black “leaders” working feverishly to defeat virtually every black Republican who runs for office, as well as working feverishly to hamper the nomination of minority conservatives (remember Ted Kennedy’s leaked “he is Hispanic” memo?) or to visciously castigate them with racial slurs once they assume their appointed offices.
I loudly applaud any minority who chooses to run for office as a Republican, simply because it takes a lot of courage to face destruction by your own people.
As far as “nutjobs” go, yes Alan Keyes is very far out on the paleoconservative/libertarian limb. But if you want to discuss nutjobs, then you should be willing to discuss the likes of Malik Zulu Shabazz, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan, each of whom — if not given an outright position of authority and leadership within the Democratic party — has at least received its tacit approval.
Sorry for the double post (and incomplete repost). Typepad timed out and I thought my reply was lost.
Hmm… of Sharpton, Shabazz, and Farrakhan, how many were elected to public office by liberal Dem voters?
“there are numerous continuing examples of Democrats and black “leaders” working feverishly to defeat virtually every black Republican who runs for office…”
Wait, Democrats trying to defeat Republican candidates? YOU’RE FUCKING KIDDING! Call the New York Times! Alert CNN! Send a camera crew and helicopter or two to Mike’s place, this is huge!
Sorry — Typepad timed out and I thought my reply was lost.
“…but praising Bill Clinton as our first black president (because he got a little booty on the side and liked barbecue)”
I know that was meant to be provocative, but…zzzzzzzzzzzz:)
America is 67% non-hispanic white, but there’s a generational difference in the demographics:
from 0-19, 58%; 20-39, 60%; 60+, 80%.
That seems predictive of a pretty major shift in the next 20-40 years.
Unless there’s a huge shift in racial attitudes accompanying such a change, it may actually be quite difficult for a white male candidate to become president in, say, 2048.
You think Chris Matthews will ask… blah, blah, blah.
I’ll be surprised if Chris Matthews asks any question that’s relevant. Just because he’s not on Fox doesn’t mean most of us don’t think he’s a tool.
“On the other hand, there are numerous continuing examples of Democrats and black “leaders” working feverishly to defeat virtually every black Republican who runs for office, ”
WHAT!
You mean to tell me Democrats are actively trying to prevent Republicans from winning elections. No! I don’t believe you.
Next you’ll be telling me sports teams try to avoid losing to their opponents.
e. g. liberals and black leaders denouncing Clarence Thomas and Condolezza Rice etc. as not really being black
No, not at all. Liberals denounce them because they’re assholes.
Acanthus,
I stand corrected - it was McDonalds, not barbecue.
Mambo and CS -
Point taken. Heh. But the black leadership is supposed to be non-partisan; last time I read up on the NAACP it is a tax-exempt non profit. If their focus is truly the advancement of blacks, then you’d think they could find one black conservative to support?
With regard to Democrats, there is a difference in being the loyal opposition and trying to win elections, versus purposefully trying to sabotage conservative minorities; the leaked Kennedy memo seemed to clearly indicated that Kennedy’s top priority was to make sure that a minority appointment (Miguel Estrada) was derailed simply because Democrats want as few minority conservatives as possible. Apparently senior Democrat policy is to force out all minorities who are Democrats. So much for true “diversity.”
… to force out all minorities who are NOT Democrats.
Look the problem is that black conservatives are not in tune with what the NAACP and organizations like them want in politics. Do you think they should support black politicians only because of their skin color?