’)
WaPo:
Alex Castellanos, a Republican media consultant, will take over as a senior communications adviser to RNC Chairman Michael Steele, according to a source familiar with the move.
Castellanos & The Insurance Industry:
The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent has confirmed that CNN contributor Alex Castellanos’ political consulting firm, National Media, is the ad buyer for the insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plan’s (AHIP) new ad blitz attacking Democratic health reform plans.
Alex Castellanos’ racist “Hands” ad for segregationist Jesse Helms:
Near the end of the 1990 U.S. Senate race in North Carolina, Castellanos produced an advertisement for incumbent Republican Senator Jesse Helms, who was then trailing Democratic challenger and Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt, an African-American. The ad shows the hands of a white man crumpling a job application rejection notice as a narrator intones, “You needed that job. But they had to give it to a minority. The ad then references Gantt’s supposed support for racial quotas and Helms’s opposition. No other part of the actor’s body is shown.
Same old, same old, GOP.
The stormfrontists at Fortune Magazine called him a “new style media master”
Castellanos was a frequent critic of Obama during the campaign, while consistently singing the praises of the Palin/McCain ticket, repeating ad nauseum any and all distortions and fabrications which attempted to smear Obama’s character.
He was recently exposed for the GOP shill that he is, but has remained at CNN throwing out as many talking points as he can remember.
How anyone could have watched his utterly partisan campaign ‘analysis’ and not known what a completely biased and specious tool he is, defies logic.
LOL,
Why would an ad about affirmative action be considered racist? After all it is a mighty popular program here in liberal land even if it is in direct opposition to the 14th amendment which again doesn’t disturb the majority here. So what is the big problem?
@Amused – Yeah, because nothing is racist anymore, right? Ho, ho, ho!
even if it is in direct opposition to the 14th amendment
How many times does the Supreme Court have to rule that you’re wrong before you believe ‘em? Or maybe you think the Supreme Court doesn’t really understand the Constitution?
Quaker,
It’s a sad thing but they do get things wrong from time to time.
From the document in question, specifically the first part of the 14th.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Affirmative action is directly opposed to the concept of equal protection under the law. Affirmative action is legalized discrimination that treats americans differently under the law, that denies one american the protection it gives another.
There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that allows one citizen to be treated differently than another under the law because of his group membership. I challenge you to show me the text that would over ride the 14th.
What liberals don’t understand is an erosion of one liberty is an erosion of all liberties. But then liberals aren’t really all that keen on liberty anyway, they’re big on new unenumerated rights but the freedom and liberty of the individual doesn’t fit the narrative.
But then you already know most of that Quaker, you just don’t care.
Tell you what: we’ll get rid of Affirmative Action just as soon as covert – and overt – racism is gone.
Once the disease is eradicated, we won’t need the treatment.
It’s a sad thing but they do get things wrong from time to time.
There’s very little they get wrong time after time. And in this case, the Court has ruled over and over that affirmative action does not violate the 14th.
Why can’t you come to terms with that? Or are you just way smarter than all those silly Justices? Did you become that way through study or do you have your ethnic heritage to thank?
Or are you just way smarter than all those silly Justices?
Naturally.
Some guy with a computer thinks that he understands the law and the Constitution better than the Supreme Court justices. And still, I am the elitist, arrogant, know-it-all liberal. Ha.
There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that allows one citizen to be treated differently than another under the law because of his group membership.
And yet you seem to have no problem with legacy admissions into top tier colleges…
There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that allows one citizen to be treated differently than another under the law because of his group membership. I challenge you to show me the text that would over ride the 14th.
And you think I “understand but don’t care”? Ha!
Federal law recognizes that in the absence of government intervention, some citizens will be treated differently from others. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that legislative remedies are, in fact, consistent with the text of the 14th Amendment.
Of course, you undestand that, don’t you?
“There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that allows one citizen to be treated differently than another under the law because of his group membership.”
Well, its good to know you support gay marriage.
AO – if whites suddenly become historically oppressed and victims of societal and systemic discrimination, then they too will become beneficiaries of Affirmative Action.
Tim, you’re right: White folks might want to think about leaving those policies on the books considering the projections for the demographic composition of the US in the coming years. Just sayin.
Republicans are racists!
Democrats are stereotypers!
AAAAaaaaUUUUuuuuGGGGggggGGGGggggHHHHhhhh!!!!
For goodness’ sake, Frank! Your adequate grammer allows you to sound smart to newbies and occasional lurkers, why shatter the illusion now???
Shall I be erudite? OK : I am sick and tired of Oliver’s McCarthyesque dredging up of moribund vignettes from decades past, that paint one incident as indiciative of the entire Republican panoply of ideologies.
Better?
It seems like the fact that Oliver can do this over, and over, and over, and over, and OVER, AND OVER again, to the point where you’re sick of him doing it, is indicative of a pattern of behavior for the GOP and its simpleton membership.
You’re right – one incident, or two incidents, does not mean that one can condemn a whole group of people. But how about 10,000? How many individual incidents do we need to document?
of the entire Republican panoply of ideologies.
Haaaaaaahahahahaha! Yes, yes, you guys have a big tent. I forgot. Ha!
Nope! Now you’re trying too hard. Doesn’t sound smart either!
P.S.: Yes, I am being trollish.
Southern Quaker,
You should be bright enough to know your strawman has no relevence to the constitutionality of affirmative action or the 14th amendment. I have put forth no position on legacy admissions, to insinuate that I have is an example of either ignorance or deceit.
I have put forth no position on legacy admissions,
Oh really?
What is it you think affirmative action is used for?
Legacy admissions are tied to alumni contributions more than any other factor.
I see. So being able to buy your way to the front of the line falls within your definition of “equal treatment”?
The color of the herring is red Quaker. My definition of equal treatment regarding entrance admissions at state funded institutions of education would center around individuals ranked objectively by test scores that were blind to group affiliation.
Of course, the big donors who can buy a place for their kids on the admissions list are predominantly…what color? Your version of “color blindness” perpetuates historical discrimination.
It seems like the fact that Oliver can do this over, and over, and over, and over, and OVER, AND OVER again, to the point where you’re sick of him doing it, is indicative of a pattern of behavior for the GOP and its simpleton membership.
Only if you believe that a sufficient number of Oliver’s erroneous reports equal X amount of true ones.