So, one of the smarter things Rove and Bush tried to do is bring minorities into the Republican fold. They had to see the writing on the wall. The core constituency of the Republican party, white males, is not growing. The major reason their political influence remains disproportionately high is due to a lack of political involvement on the behalf of minorities – particularly hispanics. Now that that community is finally engaged, it coincides right with the Republican notion that it needed to retain its base by embracing hatred to hispanics under the guise of immigration reform. The most immigration friendly Republican candidate eventually became the nominee, but it looks like the damage has been done. Republicans may have lost hispanic Americans for a generation. They are on pace to lose women, and every other minority votes Democratic.
They’re just lazy and want free stuff!
Hey, why won’t you vote for us? Do you find that insulting in some way?
There are few Americans that possess your clarity. Please keep up the good work!
Who could have predicted people would be offended by righties defending segregation and calling people anchor babies and sand ticks
Thanks for the link. I linked to yours recently and it sure helps the traffic.
Don’t forget that millions of white men, like myself, vote for progressive Democrats every election.
Just as building a party entirely around white men is stupid, so would be building one without us at all. It would be just as stupid as ignoring minorities and almost as stupid as ignoring women.
I was just mixing up a dough and heard that cunningham character slander Obama (again). Some freakazoid called in to inform the ugly man of yet another Obama association – I missed the name but it had something to do with child molestation. The ugly old white man then said that child molestation is way down on the list of Obama’s friends. The ugly little old man then went on to accuse Obama of endorsing the murder of millions of Jews. I don’t understand – is this not liable? It can’t be protected by the freedom of speech, can it? This is crazy hate talk. Perplexed.
Yes, there are millions of younger white males like you with a promissing future who vote progressive, not the decaying old geezers who are out of touch with the 21st century.
I recall whites vote around 55% Republican in Presidential elections, which leaves a solid 45% or so who vote Democrat. And I’m sure those whites who vote Democrat are younger, better educated, have good careers, and have more stable families and fulfilling lives.
White males who vote Republican tend to be old, eccentric, depressed, hateful, racist, and suicidal. They often come from broken families and bitter divorces.
For years the GOP has been attacking the Dems for making multicultural appeals. The problem is, as the GOP was doing that, it began to lose the demographic war. Brand-wise, only one of the two national parties has proven its openness to people of all color. Yes, there is the occasional black Republican they push out in the press, but minorities who may even have issues with the Dems don’t feel welcome in the party of Tom Tancredo and George Allen.
Frankly I would rather the GOP make a play for minorities so the Dems have some competition and don’t get complacent, but with the Palin wing of the party likely to control things in the near future, I don’t see it.
I just saw a Joe Arpaio ad that was an absolutely jaw-dropping piece of race-baiting and fear-mongering — straight up “they’re stealing our jobs and committing crimes; call the Sheriff if there’s a suspected drophouse in our neighborhood” stuff.
I can’t believe I live in a place where a man who runs ads like that keeps getting re-elected in landslides.
The goal should be to help the Republican party shrink itself into a pitiful regional party that can only win the deep South (quite possibly, minus Georgia!), Utah and Idaho. I think that’s very achievable, and Obama’s map will already take us a significant distance in that direction.
This is who they are. Up next: stealing candy from babies.
Yeah, that will win people over to your side. Make their children cry.
canadian bacon,
There is no liability for “hate speech” in the U.S., although speech can be used as evidence of bias when prosecuting a crime with bias as the motive, also known as a “hate crime,” just as speech can be used as evidence of motive for any other crime (”Ladies and gentleman of the jury, here is a tape of the defendant saying he wanted his father’s money, right before he pushed the victim down the stairs”). Civil liability extends only to defamation, and it is very nearly impossible for a public figure, especially an elected official, to win a defamation lawsuit. That’s part of why most elected officials don’t bother, no matter how ridiculous the claims made about them are.
I think our current First Amendment law is very good, and my only concern is that a conservative Supreme Court will push toward releasing commercial entities from an obligation to tell the truth in their advertising. The desire to give commercial speech the same protection as political, artistic, scientific and educational speech, as a means of avoiding regulation on advertising, has been bubbling up for a long time among Republicans.