“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”
The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.
“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”
With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.
“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Good riddance. I have to say, for all the lectures you've given on the importance of maintaining civility on this site, and of not discouraging new site traffic by morphing into a political mudpit, in recent months there's nothing that's been quite so ironclad a guarantee that an already contentious political thread will go further down the tubes into hyperbolic screed and unsubstantiated "I know you are, but what am I" breast**-for-tat than your entry into said thread, which, I have to admit, is pretty impressive given the competition. And I'm not just talking about your well-noted Stalinization of threads that don't meet with your constantly "evolving" notions of what constitutes civil discourse. Freaking Joey B's been posting more content-based posts than you have lately.
You want to put me in time out for these comments (if you've still got any pull on this site, that is), knock yourself out. I suspect I'm not alone in these sentiments.
**nod to the hypervigilant nanny.
Sadly not.
Yes. Denying that the GOP platform is homophobic is, well, denial.
You want to put me in time out for these comments (if you've still got any pull on this site, that is), knock yourself out. I suspect I'm not alone in these sentiments.
Yeah, it was just so much more *fun* when the thread was simply calling Joe Kehoskie stupid or a troll page after page, wasn't it? It's a lot more fun to pile up on Ray DiPerna and constantly call him names and belittle him when nobody's calling you on it, ain't it?
i know that people are supposed to be all "democracy in action" about this, but if you're actually looking forward to what would happen with a republican led congress and a republican president, i have to ask, if your leadership is so weak that they can't get their guy through the republican primary in ####### texas, how can you expect them to run the largest economy in the world?
the republican party right now is basically the textbook example of the tail wagging the dog, and it's actually getting worse. they've gone from cowering in front of pat robertson to cowering in front of rush limbaugh to cowering in front of, well, this guy.
As to the substance--where the hell did I "pile up on DiPerna" anyplace in this thread? I disagree with many of Ray's political views (though I share more than I thought I did, in light of a post of his in the not-too-distant past outlining his stance on a laundry list of issues), and I think he's frequently deliberately obtuse, but I think of it at this point as a persona to be enjoyed and often engaged (and yes, tweaked) than a mudslinging target.
I stand by my statement that your recent persona is unmatched in its ability to ratchet the level of vitriol in these threads up to 11 almost instantaneously; it's really quite a remarkable (and sad) transformation from a poster whose posts I used to respect and find interesting, even when I disagreed. The loss that shift represents appears to be much more yours than mine, however.
You appear to have a hard time differentiating between talking about behavior and talking about personality. While some posters undoubtedly were hurling attacks at Ray and Kehoskie, for the most part, the discussion was about their posts, not their persons. In addition, those posts that were about them as people tended to get push back from other posters.
Also, as usual, your reaction to your own bad behavior is focusing on other people.
I meant many, not any.
As to the substance--where the hell did I "pile up on DiPerna" anyplace in this thread?
You haven't participated here as far as I can tell, but you're certainly endorsing the thuggish behavior, the isolating and singling-out of people for mocking that exists in these contentious threads.
stand by my statement that your recent persona is unmatched in its ability to ratchet the level of vitriol in these threads up to 11 almost instantaneously; it's really quite a remarkable (and sad) transformation from a poster whose posts I used to respect and find interesting, even when I disagreed. The loss that shift represents appears to be much more yours than mine, however.
Consider the loss of respect mutual. Luckily, there's no reason for us to ever need to interact again, so I'll just leave it at that.
While it's clear that you're not trafficking in reality of late, what the hell are you talking about? (What the hell does "thuggish behavior" on an internet discussion board [short of implied physical threats] even consist of?)
Consider the loss of respect mutual. Luckily, there's no reason for us to ever need to interact again, so I'll just leave it at that.
Sure you will. You took about 30 seconds to respond to my last post after purportedly forsaking the hopeless liberal BBTF scum for all eternity.
Anyway ...
You don't seem to know much about Ted Cruz. Ted's a future president and/or Supreme Court justice who racked up major Supreme Court victories as Texas solicitor general, including the very underrated Medellin win, and he also scored an important assist with Heller. The Texas establishment mostly fell in line behind Dewhurst simply because Dewhurst has been around longer and was owed more favors than the 41-year-old Cruz, but Ted won the primary on the merits, not because a bunch of wingnuts dragged him across the finish line.
This is an overreach. I agree with your overall point--that Ted Cruz is not a bad candidate for Senate in the state of Texas. He's not Todd Akin or ... who's the other really crazy one this cycle? Can't recall. R's now look relatively unlikely to win Senate--will likely only happen in a serious wave for Romney/random unforseeable event.
Supreme Court justice probably isn't. He's a virtual lock to a Federal appointment at some point in the future. At that point his track record would indicate that he's a front runner for a nomination to SCOTUS.
He's a future Supreme Court Justice in the same way Julio Teheran is a future ace, all the pieces are there so lets see if it falls into place.
Uh ... he's more like a future Supreme in the same way that Ray diPerna or David Nieporent is (no offense, Ray or David). He's staked out several rather extreme ideological positions and given some quotes that could be played over and over again.
This is not to say that he would necessarily be a bad member of SCOTUS, just that the current realities of the situation tend to flavor very bland nominees who have a light track record, with as little video of them speaking as possible.
Fair enough, maybe I'm being a little idealistic or naive in the hopes that a nominee with strong views should be a front runner for the job. I just finished law school, the world hasn't ground all the hope out of me yet.
I have to agree with this. It's one thing to have a set of rulings you can defend with "Well, that's how I interpret the law" and another to be on record with your policy preferences in a long list of subjects. When you're being asked where your policy preferences and interpretation of the law diverge, you're in trouble as a SCOTUS nominee.
So, better than >99% of the population? Doesn't seem like much of an insult...
Meh, Joe has been engaging in his fair share of mudslinging. He has just been directing it towards "liberals" and "lefties", rather than having the ability to actually respond to things that have been written in this thread.
As the challenger and campaign that is behind (or at best roughly equal) they need to define Mitt in a positive way (or double down on Obama = Evil I suppose).
I agree any going nuts is annoying. Regarding the same, if you or anyone wants to offer an opinion regarding what I (specifically) did to merit ignoring, or reprint my question for Dan, I would certainly find that interesting.
I would definitely accept that simply being too subjectively annoying/irritating to listen to is a valid reason, as that's the only ignore I have (and they are generally about .05% of political threads anyhow [I wrote that percentage correctly]).
Liberal media reports that Ann was the biggest hit of anyone so far.
On a liberal style-over-substance note, Christie's speech was not as king-making as Obama's, but not as king-destroying as Jindal's.
Then Chris Christie spoke. His speech ended tragically when Princess Leia came out from behind him in her slave outfit and violently strangled him to death with a giant chain.
Considering that you seem unaware that Ted Cruz was born in Canada, I'm not sure how much you really know about Ted Cruz yourself. (smile)
EDIT: I can't believe I haven't had to spring for a whole case of cokes for this one.
I will bet any amount of money that Cruz will never be president. He was born in Canada.
No idea Lassus. Of course I don't have anyone on ignore and try to to take or make anything personal about internet discussions (And yes I occasionally fail). Heck if I can be good friends with and even be landlord for my ex I can stay civil with people on the internet.
Guapo: Great Length you say? Hmmmm
* And yes I purposefully used the term American, even though Canadians are obviously American.
The Costco whining is whining.
Eh, we'll just get the Birther in Reverse movement.
Gooodddd.... gooooddd... Use your sympathy for the downtrodden! Let the empathy flow through you. Take your collectivist kumbahyah weapon and strike me down! The socialized concern for your fellow man is swelling in you now. Take the anti-bullying statutes that dwell in your heart and codify them! I am unarmed. Give in to your collective concern for your fellow man. With each passing moment you make yourself more my liberal fellow traveler.
Somebody needs to give props for this.
Kehoskie is a troll and stupid. I mean, in 10000 posts in these OT political threads the man's yet to say anything that a Limbaugh-programmed Dittoheadbot couldn't have spit out randomly. Complaining about Kehoskie being called a troll is like complaining about Jeff Francoeur being called a bad MLB baseball player.
Actually, I've taken time out of this thread and many others to defend Ray, even when Ray's obviously wrong on the details. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant, Dan.
Of the numerous, nigh uncountable stupid things Dan has said or done on the internet since 1995, his apparent decision to killfile you is at least in the top five. And that's saying a lot. Dan has said and done a lot of stupid #### on the internet, after all.
Right after that NAFTA Superhighway gets completed, Archmaester Annan.
Sociopaths who would endanger our food supply by importing lobsters in plastic rather than cardboard boxes, natch. Some people just don't care that federal prosecutors have to feed their families, too.
I believe the name calling. Which is odd because Joe is a big boy, the names have not been that bad, and plenty of name calling has flowed both Left to Right and Right to Left.
Someone called Joe a troll, alert the media. Heck, Ray called me a troll and it did not bother me* and I didn't notice Dan crying crocodile tears over that (I might have been when he was banned though - I am not sure). Basically there are bomb throwers on both sides (Hi Sam!) and thin skins on both sides, but it does get odd when someone is both.
* It did bother me when he lied about never engaging in personal attacks after that, but the name calling I ignored. Heck I even complimented Ray earlier in the thread.
I agree with Lassus in 4523 --
The supposedly liberal media is all aflutter over Ann's speech. However - and granted, I'm partisan - it didn't sound any different to me than dozens of speeches I've heard at weddings and anniversary parties. I'm sure she loves Mitt. I'm sure it's genuine. I'm sure he's good to her. However, this was basically Team Romney's plan to deal with that growing gender gap. Bob Schieffer thinks it worked - I'm not sure I do... It sounded more like Anna Faris in a romantic comedy opening act 3 with the big speech about her wonderful co-lead and what a good husband he'll make.
Christie was better... interestingly, I found it more instructive about Christie's political future -- this wasn't a "remember me because I'll be back" speech, it was really a nominee/party boosting speech. On that end, I think it was solid to good. Although, he had a section about 'putting adults back in charge" -- my mind immediately did a WTF, are you saying 2001-2009 was particularly 'adultish'? I wonder how many other people thought "Dubya? Really? Is that wise?"
The liberal blogosphere has been buzzing a bit about an incident where a couple of RNC attendees were ejected for throwing peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman yelling "this is how we feed animals".
Now, of course, luck of the draw could certainly put a camera in the right place at the right time at the DNC convention and probably find an idiot or two acting equally abhorrent...
But first, I think Josh Marshall is right - CNN didn't even acknowledge the incident until after the RNC had confirmed it (and issued a statement about the ejections), and certainly hasn't been reporting on it. Conventions are designed to be newsless beyond the things the party wants to be news - like spotlighting a rising party star, etc. This is the sort of thing that the media would ordinarily love because it allows them to "report" rather than play stenographer to the preferred, pre-packaged storylines. Can you imagine if the equivalent had happened at the DNC to say, a Fox cameraman, perhaps with those two dudes from 2008 (supposedly black panthers standing outside a polling place in a precinct that consistently went 95% Democratic anyway) shouting 'screw whitey'? I doubt Neil Cavuto would make it through a broadcast without multiple orgasms. Yet - the supposedly biased CNN hasn't even reported on it.
Second, I think there's an undercurrent here that the GOP does need to address. The whole "Obama wants to just hand out welfare checks" gambit around the 'workfare' waivers (requested by several GOP governors and actually also supported by then-governor Romney, too) is a really, really dishonest policy-based attack. They've been called out by a few folks on the race-baiting undercurrent -- unsurprisingly by liberal Chris Mathews on liberal MSNBC, but also by the AP's Ron Fournier who is no stranger to pissing off Democrats and liberals, too. It's certainly a dog whistle... and as much as it IS unfair to tar an entire party with the actions of a few, shouldn't the GOP bear some responsibility for the fact that the dogs come running when you blow a dog whistle?
The beauty of well ordered fascism is that it gives every pissant an anthill to piss from.
It's better to think of the natural outcome of this scenario as a taxpayer-subsidized scholarship for little Hunter. You'll go crazy at a much slower rate, and you're less likely to alienate your friends and coworkers by constantly posting Bierce and Twain quotes on your facebook page.
EDIT: I think there's an undercurrent here that
the GOPChris Matthews does need to address.Anonymous wiki editor /= convention attendee
Yeah, there's no lefty venom toward African-American Republicans ... other than a Dem big shot suggesting that they are 21st-century minstrels.
On one hand it goes contrary to past precedence. On the other politics is a tough game and both sides are playing plenty rough.
As for me I am OK with it
This was said where?
Calling Arthur Davis names for leaving Democrats and endorsing Romney = Racist.
I thought righties hated him after the "halftime in America" commercial-- which was basically seen as propaganda for the Obama admin's auto bailout?
Gran Turino was a fantastically complex film. Though the high point was when Clint literally told them to get the hell off his lawn.
So what do folks think about Hillary being in the Cook Islands(!) during the DNC?
As for Obama, I think the bigger issue is campaigning during the hurricane. Assuming he quickly pivots if there are casualties, I don't see that as a problem either.
How does it go against pass precedent?
McCain appeared on Leno during the first day of the Democratic convention in 2008. I think that counts as campaigning.
Romney, then considered a Republican VP candidate, crashed the 2008 convention and shot cable TV interviews on behalf of McCain from within the hall. I think that counts as campaigning.
In 2008, McCain announced he had decided on a running mate on the last day of the Democratic convention. I think that counts as campaigning, too.
Putting aside the political dishonesty, what's the link between workforce waivers and race? Do you believe that the GOP is partly or wholly against workforce waivers because of the racial demographics of welfare recipients?
So...it's unfair but you'll do it anyway? Or is it not unfair?
He voted twice against PPACA... When he ran for AL governor -- the liberal blogosphere was ENTIRELY behind his opponent (Ron Sparks). Davis was much further right than his district when he was in congress (I know he got primaried multiple times), he's been one of those 'favorite Democrats' of Republicans for a long-time. He's very neocon-ish on foreign policy. He's given cover to the voter suppression ID laws.
In short - Davis has never been a good Democrat, he's always been a pain in the ass, and the fact most Democrats who pay attention to 'most Democrats' have always disliked him, thought of him as nothing more than a naked opportunist, etc is nothing new... He was essentially an Arlen Specter writ large -- he ran as a Democrat because he was in a Democratic district and it was his best path to congress. However, unlike Specter -- who only occasionally went rogue on the party -- Davis always made a habit out of it.
The idea that Democrats/liberals are 'suddenly' turning on Davis is complete and utter nonsense... we've NEVER liked his opportunistic ass.
(from the summary)
“Among those who saw it,” reports Tesler, “racial resentment affected whether people thought Romney will help the poor, the middle class and African Americans. Moreover, seeing the ad did not activate other attitudes, such as party or ideological self-identification. It only primed racial resentment.”
This is where things get tricky. Romney’s welfare ads are not racist. But the evidence suggests that they work particularly well if the viewer is racist, or at least racially resentful. And these are the ads that are working so unexpectedly well that welfare is now the spine of Romney’s 2012 on-air message in the battleground states.
You're missing the point -- they weren't against the waivers -- until Obama granted them. Utah Governor Gary Herbet and Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval were previously on record for wanting the waivers so they could redesign their state programs. Mitt Romney himself had previously wanted the waivers.
In 2005 EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR - including Haley Barbour, including Mitt Romney, including Mitch Daniels, including Tim Pawlenty, including Jeb Bush -- signed a letter asking for precisely what Obama has just done, fer chrissakes!
I mean, come on... are you seriously going to pretend this isn't a naked dog whistle?
We need look no further than South Carolina's ultra-conservative First Congressional District, which gave twice as much primary support to Tea Party darling Tim Scott, than his closest challenger, one of Strom Thurmond's sons, in both the primary and runoff. Scott also won the general election by a 2-to-1 margin.
The tiresome attempts in this election year to tie the GOP to racism are evident that some on the left are well aware of the consequences if more African-Americans defect to the GOP and will go to extreme lengths to ensure that it doesn't happen.
So you're saying that Romney is against waivers because racists are against waivers and Romney is looking to pick up the racist vote? I'm honestly just trying to be clear on what you're saying. The implication was that there was a race element to why the GOP changed positions on workforce waivers, and I honestly wasn't able to work it out from your initial post on the matter until reading what Ron J2 posted.
If the GOP is trying to embrace the minority population then why are they behind voter disenfranchisement which targets minorities?
No, it's evidence that sometimes the GOP blows the dog whistle a bit too hard... I'm also quite sure that plenty of Teabaggers/Republicans can respect/support/etc plenty of individual African-Americans... but I'm also quite sure that that plenty of them think that collectively African-Americans are more interested in living off the public dole.
It's no different than Ronald Reagan alluding to fantastical "Cadillac-driving welfare queen" -- you think it was just pure happenstance that a stereotypical AA image was selected rather than say.... "shiny new F150 pickup driving welfare king"?
The welfare gambit isn't about policy... it's purely and simply about making sure to remind the "right people" that -- wink, wink -- the guy in the Oval Office is giving away "your money" to those savages in the cities you hate so much.
I dunno, to me Eastwood has two distinct personae, the first one being the Eastwood of Dirty Harry, and the other being the Eastwood who made Gran Torino (with its strong anti-racist message) and Letters From Iwo Jima, which was among the best American-produced war movies ever, and focused entirely on the Japanese side of the battle. He's the last Hollywood star I'd ever want to try to stereotype.
I'll put it this way: I'm not sure how much good Eastwood's endorsement will actually do for Mitt Romney in the ocean of celebrity endorsements, but I'd rather see him speaking at the DNC's convention than at the RNC's. I'd much rather see the GOP trot out Mel Gibson.
I have no idea how effective a dog whistle it is, or how racist. I am terrible at spoting that sort of thing. The research presented upthread is suggestive. The emphasis on the attack suggests someone thinks it is effective. However the only thing not up in the air is the honesty of the attack - pretty much everyone agrees the attack is complete BS.
Anyone who objected to the misuse of the Romney "I like firing people" line should object to this attack and the "You didn't build that" line of attack. For the record I find all three distasteful but not very symphathetic to those whining about it not being fair.
Imagine if a Republican had used that term to describe President Obama. The gang at MSNBC would be all over it.
Speaking of MSNBC, they appear to cut away from the speeches when minorities are at the podium. Maybe it's coincidence, maybe it's not.
I specifically mentioned the characters he has played recently. Gran Torino was about an old crusty racist with a heart of gold who learns better. Which again is kinda what the Republicans are trying to portray themselves as. A bunch old crusty white guys who are basically deep down good guys and will like you on an individual level but think your group or race overall is inferior.
Did you really feel the urgent need to refute a claim that I didn't make? Yeesh.
The liberal view*: Minorities vote for Dems because the other side is racist.
Democrat policies are relatively more favorable to minorities and the actions of the GOP are somewhat similar to those a racist party might enact. Why do minorities really vote for D over R? Are Dems really pandering and is the GOP really racist?
The votes count just the same and I suspect the answers to the questions above are a bit of all of the above. The proportions matter, but teasing them out is pretty darn hard.
* As often presented in this thread. I make no claims that this is the actual majority or even plurality view of either side.
They haven't changed positions.
The 'waivers' are not for individuals - they're for states to modify their TANF programs and fix some of the glaring flaws in the original federal dictates of the original law. If you don't like what your state modifies - then take it up with that state's governor and legislature. It doesn't change the cost of TANF, it doesn't change the existing law, it simply does precisely what the law allows anyway -- waivers to be granted to states to change the confines of the program. Given that we have seen NO decrease in poverty levels in the US since the passage of the law, it ought to be pretty clear that even if the law was passed with good intentions, it hasn't worked. It's woefully restrictive against things like education and training. It's terrible at doing what it actually proposed to do - put welfare recipients on a path to self-sufficiency through employment.
However, at the heart of it -- we're talking relatively wonky changes that lie mainly in the arena of federal TANF management versus state TANF management.
If the GOP weren't hellbent on using it as a cudgel - it wouldn't have even made the papers.
Again - it's NOT that the GOP gives a rat's ass about the "policy". Whatever happened to "state's rights"? And - compare this to the huzzahs the GOP provides when SCOTUS actually did with Medicaid - a very close cousin to TANF - precisely what's at play here!
It's naked hypocrisy over a relatively minor wonky machination for one and only one reason... because it helps juice the 'right people' by pretending these phantasms of "others" living high on the hog off of the 'right people's' tax dollars.
I was just trying to understand the connection, which Ron J2 helpfully pointed out to me. I was putting aside the honesty issue because I felt that there was a consensus that the attack is dishonest. I just wasn't understanding the racial connection being alleged in the decision to flip (or, appear to flip but not really flip) positions.
Did he get elected because of the black vote? It doesn't appear so. He got 32% of the vote in the initial primary. Waht % of registered Republicans in the 1st district are black. He then won the runoff against the #2 candidate. Same question applies to that. He then won 62% of the vote in the election. The 1st district is 20% black and 75% white. He won not because black voters are turning to the Republican party but because whites were willing to vote for him. The election of a black man doesn't prove that black people are voting Republican or even that voting Republican is trending up. In order to prove that we actually need the historical voting totals of black people.
Karen Bass (CA-33) is plurality Hispanic.
Andre Carson (IN-7) is majority (~65%) white.
William Clay (MO-1) is split 50/50.
Emmanuel Cleaver (MO-5) is 70% white.
Keith Ellison (MN-5) is 75% white.
Al Green (TX-9) is about evenly split 1/3 white, 1/3 black, 1/3 latino.
Barbara Lee (CA-9) is plurality white.
Sheila Lee Jackson (TX-18) is another roughly 1/3-1/3-1/3 district.
Gwen Moore (WI-4) is majority white.
Charlie Rangel (NY-15) is actually majority Latino.
Laura Richardson (CA-47) is almost majority Latino.
Maxine Waters (CA-35) is almost majority Latino.
Mel Watt (NC-12) is majority white.
EDIT: I will happily examine the list Zonk provided after lunch.
EDIT 2: In any event, I was sloppy above. I had meant to repeat the question in 4584, which asked how many white-majority, Democrat Congressional districts elected African-Americans.
I specifically mentioned the characters he has played recently. Gran Torino was about an old crusty racist with a heart of gold who learns better. Which again is kinda what the Republicans are trying to portray themselves as. A bunch old crusty white guys who are basically deep down good guys and will like you on an individual level but think your group or race overall is inferior.
Maybe, and we can all think of a lot of Republicans we know where that view represents a certain amount of truth, but I think we might agree that the soul of the current GOP is far more attuned to Eastwood the Gunslinger and the "Get off my lawn" part of Gran Torino than it is to the "I've Now Seen The Light" Eastwood at the end of that movie. Eastwood may be a Republican for many reasons, but the Walt Kowalski at the end of Gran Torino doesn't exactly come to mind when I watch and listen to this year's Republican base in action.
Ummmm -- no -- by my count, roughly half. My list above only includes districts where the rep is black, but the majority/plurality is white or Latino.
If you want to break down into districts where the district is truly "majority" black - it's about 30%. Bump it up to "plurality" - about 2/3, maybe a bit less.
To the extent that this is true, it's largely because of a de facto alliance between African American legislators and conservatives on the state level, both of whom benefit by the sort of gerrymandering that produces congressional districts that force few of either of those groups to have to compete for swing voters. If the lines were drawn so that more districts contained a bigger number of swing voters, I think you'd find more black congressmen representing majority white districts.
I'm a registered Texas Republican who voted for Dewhurst. Wingnuts or not, the Cruz campaign was highly visible; I got numerous calls and mailings from them, much less from Dewhurst. Pretty basic stuff. Of course, every time I got a robot call from Sarah Palin or a mass mailing from Phyllis Schlafly, I was all the more motivated to go vote for Dewhurst. But not many people have the "go vote for the other guy" reaction to a campaign …
My list excludes Allen West, of course... his district is majority white - it's a swingy, D+1 district, and I feel pretty confidant West will be gone this cycle anyway... so I guess place him where you will as evidence of what you will.
That is what I was trying to dispute. If you meant black politicians "defecting" to the GOP that is one thing but I took it to mean blacks in general defecting to the GOP. I also don't really think are much of consequences for black politicians "defecting" to the GOP. Districts create strange bedfellows. For instance in DC if you wish to hold an elected position then you join the Democratic party. If you live in, I don't know, South Dakota and you want to hold an elected position you join the Republican party.
I'm not trying to say that Republicans think of themselves as Walt at the end of Gran Torino but that they wish to present that image of themselves to minorities. Republicans are trying to convince minorities that deep down they really like you and respect you so vote for us regardless of what are hacks and pundits say. Which is very similar to Eastwoods' Gran Torino character. He was gruff, he said racist things, and he appeared uncaring but gee willikers he had a heart of gold.
Yes to both questions
The Ds definitely pander to minorities
and the Rs definitely pander to racists
Okay, now I get your point fully. It's going to be a tough sell, but then WRT to minorities the GOP is like the Workers of the Underworld: They have nowhere to go but up.
I would accept that assessment as fair.
Me too, and in many ways is the heart of the demographic issue facing the GOP. Minorities are an ever increasing share of voters and racists are a decreasing share.
and the Rs definitely pander to racists
But if you remove the perjorative "pander" terminololgy, you're left with the cold fact that the Democrats are appealing (among others) to those who've gotten the short end of the stick, and the Republicans are appealing (among others) to the spiritual heirs of the Dixiecrats. Those are hardly moral equivalancies.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main