Sooooo sad.
On the first point: Most speakers exhorted the students to recruit more black and Hispanic members, to get outside the stuffy-white-guy stereotype that follows the party like a shadow. This became especially awkward at Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s keynote speech, where seven white guys—including the College Republican of the Year, white guy Leigh Wolf—sat on the dais to his right. Last year’s national leadership had three women; this year’s has none. According to those present, in his speech, RNC Chairman Michael Steele singled out the one black woman in the room for special recognition.
They could put on black face and try to trick minorities into joining the party.
RNC Chairman Michael Steele singled out the one black woman in the room for special recognition.
Okay, seriously, HOW did he do this? “Hey, we have this woman over here, and she’s here and she’s black. That’s great.” Because that wouldn’t be awkward AT ALL.
A.
According to those present, in his speech, RNC Chairman Michael Steele singled out the one black woman in the room for special recognition.
His wife?
That’s funny, I just walked past the college republicans’ booth at my school last week. Ten white dudes, all in Che Guevara-style Reagan t-shirts.
Let’s be honest, if you’re a self-promoter and a minority, there’s a big upside to joining the Republican party. It’s pretty much a lock that you’ll get your smiling face on the teevee almost constantly!
Recruiting African Americans and Hispanics into their ranks is not their problem. Republicans can always find ideological and philosophical counterparts from these prospective constituent groups. What white Republicans and their minority recruits are not able to do is to develop a critique and an agenda that resonates broadly with Blacks or Hispanics.
In the case of African Americans, the Republicans have almost nothing of value to offer that appeals to a broad cross section of the Black Electorate. The Blacks who are recruited, for example, appear to be more comfortable on the talk show circuit than in engaging in the sort of day-to-day trench work that is required to give the Republicans any credibility among Black voters.
The constant appeal on the part of Republicans, especially its Black partisans, to the alleged “conservatism” of the Black Electorate is almost laughable because it fails to demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of what this alleged “conservatism” actually entails. Black folk, for example, are generally socially conservative but their own understanding of what the social realm entails is markedly different from what others, i.e., non-blacks regard as being socially conservative.
Republicans operate at considerable disadvantage within minority communities that benefit through formal discrimination. Nobody likes the guy who takes away the sugar tit.
Republicans operate at considerable disadvantage within minority communities that benefit through formal discrimination. Nobody likes the guy who takes away the sugar tit.
I’m glad that you find racial discrimination amusing. My parents, grandparents, great-grandparents and other ancestors never did. I doubt if they thought that it was a benefit that they would happily pass on to their progeny, too.
Nobody wants to be like Mike
PT,
It is not discrimination I find amusing but the hypocrisy and intellectuel dishonesty of the left.
It is not discrimination I find amusing but the hypocrisy and intellectuel dishonesty of the left.
Whatever the faults, errors and failings of the Left, most of them, if not all, stood with Black Folk when political conservatives and ardent defenders of the Constitution such as William F. Buckley, Jr., Russell Kirk, Barry Goldwater etc. did not. The head of the brush that you so cavalierly enjoy using appears broad enough to paint people who insisted that America live up to its promises and ideals, but seems incapable of tinting those who shrank away from the greatest moral challenge the nation faced.
I am not fooled by a certain set of the Liberal Left, especially those too closely aligned with the Democratic Party, but I will take them anytime over members of the political right. I think most Black folk share my view on this issue. Liberals were there went the call went out, y’all weren’t. Never.
Right winger “Amused Observer”: “Republicans operate at considerable disadvantage” when their leaders are people like Republican Senator Jeff ‘thought the KKK were great guys until he learned some of them smoked dope’ Sessions.
Republican Jeff Sessions is a current leader but it wasn’t too long ago when a major Republican Senate leader Trent ’segregationist supporter’ Lott was endorsing elderly Republican Strom Thurmond’s segregationist Presidential run.
Even faux-moderate Republican Senator Gordon Smith was supporting those segregationist leaders just last Senate term.
And then there’s right winger “Amused Observer” who has used the bizarre racist rhetoric talking about: “Our own stock of Africans” and refer to people as “breeding groups”.
[facepalm]
LOL,
See who pushed the 64 bill through Congress so LBJ had a chance to sign it. It is the Constitution that gave you the ground to achieve civil rights.
Now the Democrats try to just buy your votes by holding out the sugar tit of money for nothing and discrimination to help you get a job or get in school.
They don’t back efforts to improve education, they fight for the NEA and the status quo.
See who pushed the 64 bill through Congress so LBJ had a chance to sign it. It is the Constitution that gave you the ground to achieve civil rights.
Oh, you guys just kill me. Find me a modern liberal who would find much commonality with mid-20th century southern democrats.
Amused Observer: Republicans operate at considerable disadvantage within minority communities that benefit through formal discrimination. Nobody likes the guy who takes away the sugar tit.”
Translation: ‘It was better in the 50s when negros new their place.’
Amused Observer: “PT,
It is not discrimination I find amusing but the hypocrisy and intellectuel dishonesty of the left.”
Translation: ‘Racism isn’t the problem. Trying to counteract the effects of racism is the problem.’
Right winger “Amused Observer”: “It is not discrimination I find amusing but the hypocrisy and intellectuel [sic] dishonesty of the left.”
? You claim to be a support of meritocracy, “Amused”.
The “left” put up two exceptionally qualified candidates for President, a Hillary Clinton and Obama…
…the “right” put two exceptionally UNqualified characters: Republican Sarah Palin was NOT qualified for the Vice Presidential Candidacy and Michael Steel is NOT qualified for the Republican Chairmanship.
True supporters of meritocracy know that.
The only way the Republican Party can lure women and minorities into their party is money. Fortunately the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Corporations, so they can afford the bills…
… Shopping sprees for Republican Sarah Palin and cushy bonus cash for Republican Michael Steele’s extended family.
Republicans = Incompetent Fiscal Policies & Crony Payoffs.
[corrected]
? You claim to be a supporter of meritocracy, “Amused”.
aHillary Clintonthe “right” put [up] two exceptionally UNqualified characters
[doh, time for a break:]
See who pushed the 64 bill through Congress so LBJ had a chance to sign it. It is the Constitution that gave you the ground to achieve civil rights.
No sea, all dry land. Yes, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill than did Democrats. By 1972, however, nearly all of the southern Democrats in the House and Senate, who had opposed the Civil Rights Bill had either switched their allegiance to the Republican Party or had retired and were replaced by southern Republicans. Not one member of the Republican House and Senate Caucus who supported these historic bills would be in a leadership position today in the Republican Party. Not one.
if you’re a self-promoter and a minority, there’s a big upside to joining the Republican party. It’s pretty much a lock that you’ll get your smiling face on the teevee almost constantly!
And all the conservative tail you could ever possibly want!
It is the Constitution that gave you the ground to achieve civil rights.
Amused – this is the crux of the problem that you and others who share your views don’t understand and probably will never understand. Black folks and their allies (yes, those liberals you despise) had to agitate again and again and again to ensure that the rights guaranteed to all American citizens were extended to Black Americans. In short, the U.S. Constitution may have been the efficient cause, but agitation, militancy, boycotts and lawsuits were obviously the sufficient cause in changing this country.
Here’s the rub, Amusing, why do you and others like you want to assert the primacy of the Constitution when you were plainly ready to disregard for generations that black people were entitled to its protections? Now, you want us to give you thanks for what we already had.
PT
In politics the pendulum swings from side to side.
“In short, the U.S. Constitution may have been the efficient cause, but agitation, militancy, boycotts and lawsuits were obviously the sufficient cause in changing this country.”
And now agitation, militancy, and lawsuits are being used to restore the primacy of the Constitution.
You are at fault for desiring to deprive fellow Americans of the protections of Constitutional rights. You just like it because the way things are now you get an unfair advantage over better qualified people. In a return to the status quo of equal protection I gain no advantage, I compete on my own merits.
>when you were plainly ready to disregard for generations that black people were entitled to its protections?
Really? I’m curious about your use of the word “you” in that sentence. What did Amused say that leads you to think he was/is ready to disregard that black people were entitled to the protections of the Constitution?
Really? I’m curious about your use of the word “you” in that sentence.
I was using the term euphemistically. The issue was not about what Amused saw or felt but what the political movement (tendency, ideological group, cohort affiliate etc.) saw and felt. Since you knew that, though, why did you bother to ask?
You are at fault for desiring to deprive fellow Americans of the protections of Constitutional rights. You just like it because the way things are now you get an unfair advantage over better qualified people. In a return to the status quo of equal protection I gain no advantage, I compete on my own merits.
You are making assumptions that are not warranted by the facts. Black folks don’t wish to deprive you of any Constitutional Rights and they have never asserted that unqualified job applicants should be hired over qualified job applicants.
On a personal note, however, I will tell you that given the things I have been denied in my life because of the color of my skin, I certainly have no intentions of turning away anything that someone wants to give me because of the color of my skin. I think this attitude places me in the mainstream of America. That is, unless you want to argue that white privilege is a figment of our imaginations.
>The issue was not about what Amused saw or felt but what the political movement (tendency, ideological group, cohort affiliate etc.) saw and felt. Since you knew that, though, why did you bother to ask?
No, I didn’t know that – I’m trying to understand how what you are saying has relevance to contemporary times. Are you suggesting that Amused and people like him (Republicans, I guess) want to roll back Constitutional protections for black people?
AO: “In politics the pendulum swings from side to side.”
And right now the racist pendulum has swung to the Republicans. Yeah, forty years ago the Democrats were the part of racism, and in forty years there might be a new party that runs on racism. But right now, the Republicans are the party of racism.
Are you suggesting that Amused and people like him (Republicans, I guess) want to roll back Constitutional protections for black people?
I’m saying that Amused and others are the inheritors of a political movement or tradition that, at best, only wanted to pay lip service to granting Black Americans their Constitutional rights. The issue of what Amused et al. actually feel as individuals about Black Americans is another question that I am not qualified to address because I can’t read minds.
Black folks don’t wish to deprive you of any Constitutional Rights and they have never asserted that unqualified job applicants should be hired over qualified job applicants.
That is good to know. One would get the mistaken impression from many of the commentor here that black folks do indeed wish to deprive me of equal protection under the law and furthermore find it acceptable to use quotas and policies that keep individuals from committing on thier own merits.
That is good to know. One would get the mistaken impression from many of the commentor here that black folks do indeed wish to deprive me of equal protection under the law and furthermore find it acceptable to use quotas and policies that keep individuals from committing on thier own merits.
Well, I have never read anything on this site that would lead me to make such a conclusion but I would hope that what I wrote has helped to clarify any misunderstandings you might have had.
One would get the mistaken impression from many of the commentor [sic] here that black folks do indeed wish to deprive me of equal protection under the law and furthermore find it acceptable to use quotas and policies that keep individuals from committing on thier [sic] own merits.
Now that your mistaken views and failed reading comprehension have been corrected, can we expect apologies all around?
Are all conservatives as confused as you were before we helped you figure this out?
Well certainly Repack,
I apologize to all of the folks here who I mistakenly thought favored Affirmative Action, a system of discrimination that judges individuals not by thier specific merits but operates through quotas, set asides, preferential treatment for bids, adding points to test scores or using different criteria to rank test scores based on group identity.
It makes me happy to know that everyone here is four square behind the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and would never harbor for an instant the thought that any form of discrimination is ok.
Maybe we can all get together and hold hands and demand that Obama stop all forms of Affirmative Action right now. We walk together in the sunshine as individuals judged only on thier personal merits.
Republicans operate at considerable disadvantage within minority communities that benefit through formal discrimination. Nobody likes the guy who takes away the sugar tit.
Go ahead. Keep saying this. It’ll win you alot of minority votes.
I apologize to all of the folks here who I mistakenly thought favored Affirmative Action, a system of discrimination that judges individuals not by thier specific merits but operates through quotas, set asides, preferential treatment for bids…
Oh my are you ever confused!
…adding points to test scores or using different criteria to rank test scores based on group identity.
Your problem is far worse than I had imagined. Now you want to do away with veterans’ preferences; hiring the physically disabled; filling civil service positions by promoting existing civil service employees; legacy admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, law schools and military academies; and many, if not all, apprentice admissions to the trade and craft unions. I’m sure that I missed some categories but I’m sure you will find them.
Best of luck to you, Amused, best of luck.
Game, set and match to PT.
AO, did you know that the average SAT scores of legacy admissions to Harvard is actually lower than that of so-called “affirmative action” students admitted to that self-same bastion of American higher education?
Southern Quaker: “AO, did you know…”
And you really don’t need to go further.
Of course he doesn’t know. He doesn’t know a lot of things.
He truly believes minorities are under-represented in higher education and higher paying jobs not as the result of racist policies that existed just a few generations ago, and still exist today as systemic racism. He truly believes racism is no longer a problem for African-Americans, and they can’t get ahead cause they are not skilled enough.
He’s a fucking racist asshole.
This one is for you, Amused.
It is being provided not in the hope that it will change your mind but as a message to reinforce to you why so many of us flat-out disagree with your view of the world.
Wage Gap Linked To Customer Bias
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/uow–wgl060309.php
“Oh my are you ever confused! ”
Indeed I am. I took you at your word when you assured my that black folks wished me no harm civil rights wise.
“Well, I have never read anything on this site that would lead me to make such a conclusion but I would hope that what I wrote has helped to clarify any misunderstandings you might have had.”
I had my misgivings but then Repack assured me;
“Now that your mistaken views and failed reading comprehension have been corrected, can we expect apologies all around?”
And now this;
“He’s a fucking racist asshole.”
PT, I can’t help but think you were mistaken when you claimed;
” Black folks don’t wish to deprive you of any Constitutional Rights”
You must not have got the memo, it certainly appears that at least here in OllieLand that my civil and Constitutional rights are not considered as worthy of honoring as you mistakenly thought.
LOL, the hypocrisy here runs ass deep.
Two quick notes.
First, there are smart conservatives are on college campuses. They are never members of the College Republicans, who are always the province of frat boy douchebags who probably have roofied a college gal or ten.
Second, Republicans can’t claim those who were pro-civil rights in 1964 when if those same politicians were in office today, they would call them RINO’s.
AO: “And now this;
‘He’s a fucking racist asshole.’
PT, I can’t help but think you were mistaken when you claimed;
‘Black folks don’t wish to deprive you of any Constitutional Rights’
…
LOL, the hypocrisy here runs ass deep.”
Listen up, you laughing simpleton, no one is taking away your constitutional rights, and nothing I said even implies that is the case.
You do not have a constitutional right to not be called a racist asshole, you fucking retard.
Perhaps you should stop talking about your constitutional rights, because clearly you are far too stupid to understand them.
My poor deluded Canadian,
It is understandable as a foriegner that you don’t understand the paradox here. But the namecalling, attacking the messenger when you don’t have the backround to understand the message.
Well, okay, Amused, it’s clear you are a troll who simply enjoys trying to disrupt things here. I intend to ignore you moving forward.
That’s all well and good PT,
But it doesn’t change the fact that while you personally might not be in favor of curtailing my Constitutional rights that is not the overwhelming feeling here. Blacks favor dicrimination when it favors them. Thier hypocrisy is quite obvious as is there ignorance of and disdain for the Constitution
Right wingers selective memory is amazing.
Republican President Bush shredded the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and right-wingers cheered him on.
Republican President Bush even violated the 2nd Amendment after the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
I thought Republican Bush’s violation of the 2nd Amendment would at least raise a fuss, but no, not a peep from the right.
Okay, Amused, but will you at least agree that the Blacks who post on this site know how to spell words like “discrimination” and “their”? Affirmative action apparently is working well for us, but white privilege seems to be retarding your own progress.
Spelling counts, sometimes more than the underlying message.
The original Constitution designated an entire class of people as only “three fifths” of their actual numbers, it didn’t outlaw slavery, and it didn’t provide women the right to vote.
Right wingers that cite the original Constitution as their holy grail know those things.
Until Republicans come up with policies to address issues of urban and rural poverty and until Republicans are willing to get involved on the grass roots level in organizing communities to lobby for better development and economic opportunities in black and hispanic neighborhoods, they’re not going to make any progress.
It’s easy to attract white suburban professionals with promises of tax cuts and wars waged for the entertainment of newspaper-reading and cable-news-watching constituents, but when you’re dealing with the the black and hispanic working class, you need to deliver tangible goods. If your only solution for people is to tell them to make enough money to move to the suburbs or tell them that if taxes are cut on the wealthy, then someday things might improve in your neighborhood, then you’re not going to attract their votes.
“What did Amused say that leads you to believe….[he's a racist]?”
Oooohh, I know this one!
He’s said many times that he’s been a conservative since about 1960. Name me one 1960 conservative who WASN’T a racist. Just one.
Woops, not Amused Observer! That was Frank Di Salle!
I’d apologise if I could be sure that they’re not the same person.
My bad.
They are never members of the College Republicans, who are always the province of frat boy douchebags who probably have roofied a college gal or ten.
Indeed, this guy springs to mind.
“What did Amused say that leads you to believe….[he's a racist]?”
Oh, I don’t know…
Blacks favor dicrimination when it favors them. Thier hypocrisy is quite obvious as is there ignorance of and disdain for the Constitution
(sic, sic and sic)
You must not have got the memo, it certainly appears that at least here in OllieLand that my civil and Constitutional rights are not considered as worthy of honoring as you mistakenly thought.
Since when do you have the “Constitutional right” to succeed over a minority?
LOL Zython,
“Since when do you have the “Constitutional right” to succeed over a minority?”
Since when did I claim that? Show me the quote. And while you are at it will you share with us the reasons you think that jews are over represented in the hard sciences and the professions. I know for a fact that there were quotas to keep too many of them out of med school, law school, etc. So the large number should have been even larger had thier civil rights and test scores been respected.
Right winger “Amused Observer’s” racist rhetoric has included talking about: “Our own stock of Africans” and referring to certain people as “breeding groups”.
It appears that “Amused Observer” is now saying (above) that white Europeans are inferior to Jews?
Was “Amused Observer” also the one that was earlier suggesting that white Europeans were inferior to Asians?
Perhaps he could be more specific about explaining his view of racial hierarchy.