[OAW]

This fool just said on live TV that he didn't recognize her. Even after the photo showing them together was already out. Dude is seriously flunking Crisis Management 101 ...

OAW

[Shaddim]

I doubt I would recognize everyone I've had my photo taken with, either.

At any rate. He's a boob, from what I've seen. He's the Palin of this cycle and I'm still voting for Paul in the primary.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It would appear that Herman Cain's campaign is toast.

Herman Cain: "I don't even remember" Sharon Bialek - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

But yet there's photographic evidence and witness who seems to corroborate that he recognized her and that she confronted him about something.

Witness: Sharon Bialek hugged Herman Cain during Tea Party meeting a month ago - Chicago Sun-Times

Political smear campaign? Who knows? It's definitely a case of "he said - she said" at this stage in the game. But I suspect Mr. Cain's campaign will tank shortly.

OAW

Sharon Bialek is a hired by the Herman Cain campaign. He is just pretending not to know her.

[OAW]

The really pathetic thing is that the Cain campaign first blamed the Perry campaign for the leak of this story to the press. Supposedly some former Cain aide is now working for the Perry campaign and this person knew of the allegations. Seems plausible at least because Perry stands the most to gain from an implosion of the Cain campaign. But now all of a sudden at this news conference Cain is blaming the "Democrat machine". As if Obama campaign wouldn't love to go up against Cain campaign in 2012!

OAW

[besson3c]

Obama is still the black Jesus.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The really pathetic thing is that the Cain campaign first blamed the Perry campaign for the leak of this story to the press. Supposedly some former Cain aide is now working for the Perry campaign and this person knew of the allegations. Seems plausible at least because Perry stands the most to gain from an implosion of the Cain campaign. But now all of a sudden at this news conference Cain is blaming the "Democrat machine". As if Obama campaign wouldn't love to go up against Cain campaign in 2012!

OAW

I generally agree with you here and thought Cain went overboard with the Democratic machinery. There are plenty to profit from Cain's misfortune and while I know the vitriol from the left is formidable, I don't think it's the root of his woes. Although, I thought he represented well tonight if not as a candidate for president, a man who has to drop everything to address some (let's be honest here) bizarre-assed claims.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I generally agree with you here and thought Cain went overboard with the Democratic machinery. There are plenty to profit from Cain's misfortune and while I know the vitriol from the left is formidable, I don't think it's the root of his woes. Although, I thought he represented well tonight if not as a candidate for president, a man who has to drop everything to address some (let's be honest here) bizarre-assed claims.

He handled the press conference well considering the circumstances. Except for the "I didn't even recognize her." part. I was baffled why none of the reports challenged him on that considering the picture of him with her less than a month ago. Now I totally understand how one isn't going to remember every person you take a picture with on the campaign trail. But per that article you had a Tea Party organizer of that debate who said that he hugged the lady as if they knew each other when she approached him. Interesting ....

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

He handled the press conference well considering the circumstances. Except for the "I didn't even recognize her." part. I was baffled why none of the reports challenged him on that considering the picture of him with her less than a month ago. Now I totally understand how one isn't going to remember every person you take a picture with on the campaign trail. But per that article you had a Tea Party organizer of that debate who said that he hugged the lady as if they knew each other when she approached him. Interesting ....

OAW

I heard the exact opposite from a reporter who saw the woman hug Cain and got the impression from the exchange that he hadn't a clue who she was. Strange that a sexually harassed woman would go to such "great lengths" (as reported by the journalist) to hug her harasser. The other reports about forcing heads into compromising positions etc are just far-fetched and ridiculous. Come to find out that one of the women accused another manager three years later of the same thing.

After some additional reading last night, I'm not so sure the "Democratic machine" isn't involved. After all, you've got CNN running a story about a "fifth woman". Who is the "fifth woman"? Well... we don't know as she's not named and the source of the alleged story is anonymous also. You don't need to be spoonfed this type of non-story from anyone in the GOP, you can pull that kind of nonsense out of your own rear end all day long. Many on the left would stand to lose a great deal of their tired narrative should a conservative, African-American candidate enjoy success in the GOP primary.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

It would appear that Herman Cain's campaign is toast.

Herman Cain: "I don't even remember" Sharon Bialek - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

But yet there's photographic evidence and witness who seems to corroborate that he recognized her and that she confronted him about something.

Witness: Sharon Bialek hugged Herman Cain during Tea Party meeting a month ago - Chicago Sun-Times

Political smear campaign? Who knows? It's definitely a case of "he said - she said" at this stage in the game. But I suspect Mr. Cain's campaign will tank shortly.

OAW

It all depends on what your definition of "recognize" is.

It looks like no one learned anything from this guy.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

After some additional reading last night, I'm not so sure the "Democratic machine" isn't involved. After all, you've got CNN running a story about a "fifth woman". Who is the "fifth woman"? Well... we don't know as she's not named and the source of the alleged story is anonymous also. You don't need to be spoonfed this type of non-story from anyone in the GOP, you can pull that kind of nonsense out of your own rear end all day long. Many on the left would stand to lose a great deal of their tired narrative should a conservative, African-American candidate enjoy success in the GOP primary.

This is nonsense. I can't imagine anyone on the left wouldn't love to see Cain in this until the end. Worst case, he's stirring things up for the candidates that actually have a snowballs chance in hell of beating Obama- best case, he actually wins the nomination. I can't imagine there is anyone in the primary, with the possible exception of Bachman, that Obama would rather go up against in the general.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

This is nonsense. I can't imagine anyone on the left wouldn't love to see Cain in this until the end. Worst case, he's stirring things up for the candidates that actually have a snowballs chance in hell of beating Obama- best case, he actually wins the nomination. I can't imagine there is anyone in the primary, with the possible exception of Bachman, that Obama would rather go up against in the general.

And this kneejerk. I've already stated what I believe his chances are as a VP candidate let alone POTUS. None the less, the longer he lasts as a successful candidate in the GOP primaries, the more nonsensical the Democrat's narrative. The non-story of the "fifth woman" not only gives no names of the victim or source, but the claims themselves are feeble at best. The fact that CNN picked it up and ran with it is no surprise and I simply do not see a GOP-initiated story here.

[OAW]

^^^^^^

Come on my friend. Surely you see that another GOP candidate that's going after the anti-Romney portion of the GOP primary electorate stands more to gain by torpedoing Herman Cain? While Herman Cain is no Alan Keyes by any stretch of the imagination … his policy positions simply will not play in the general electorate as well as Obama's. It's much easier to set up a clear contrast with that as it would be to Romney's or Huntsman's.

OAW

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact that CNN picked it up and ran with it is no surprise and I simply do not see a GOP-initiated story here.

Oh geez. CNN picked it up and ran with it because they calculated that it would garner ratings and web hits.* Their consumers would consume it, and their advertisers would be happy.

Well, of course, that and their evil socialist agenda...

(*And yes, that's the same reason Fox News picks up and runs with what it picks up and runs with.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^^^

Come on my friend. Surely you see that another GOP candidate that's going after the anti-Romney portion of the GOP primary electorate stands more to gain by torpedoing Herman Cain? While Herman Cain is no Alan Keyes by any stretch of the imagination … his policy positions simply will not play in the general electorate as well as Obama's. It's much easier to set up a clear contrast with that as it would be to Romney's or Huntsman's.

OAW

Let me put this another way; I believe Cain is more destructive to the left's narrative on the right in general, and the Tea Party specifically than he is to the other GOP candidates. After all, we're still a full year out from the election and the executive ticket will not be the only one on the ballot. Given the last sweep, there's greater motive in protecting the antiquated ruse than there is in sabotaging a candidate you, me, and most others believe doesn't stand a very good chance of prevailing. The real winners in this are the slow, steady horses like Romney and Gingrich that have absolutely zero to do with the allegations.

Of course the media will run with this as others have mentioned, only because it is a juicy and lucrative story right? It's just ironic that they didn't find the substantive evidence against Sen. Edwards very juicy or lucrative.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

It all depends on what your definition of "recognize" is.

It look like no one learned anything from this guy.

Yeah... I and many Democrats would absolutely LOVE to have ^ THAT ^ guy back in office. The lesson is; it could always be worse.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let me put this another way; I believe Cain is more destructive to the left's narrative on the right in general, and the Tea Party specifically than he is to the other GOP candidates.

I think I know where you are going with this but I'd rather not respond based on assumptions. So which "narrative" would this be specifically?

OAW

[besson3c]

Cain is not destructive to the narrative that the right is intolerant, because the racial breakdown of politicians is pretty irrelevant when the vast majority of voting blocks such as African American don't vote Republican.

The right's intolerance is with their rigid ideological stance on pretty much everything under the sun, and overall attitudes on social issues in insisting on everybody fitting in their little box before they'll offer political support. Take homosexuality, for instance. There is very little reason for a gay person or somebody empathetic to homosexuality to vote Republican when the vast majority of those against issues such as gay marriage are Republican. I think groups such as the African American community are empathetic to the struggles for gay rights because it was once them fighting for rights.

The Republican party is getting smaller and smaller all the time as they shift further to the right and fracture into subsections such as the whole tea party/establishment thing. In this upcoming election the final vote tally will probably be the usual approx 50% - 50%, but my point is that the party is not setup for growth right now despite this being a prime opportunity (another factor, of course, is the incredibly weak field of candidates vying for presidency). The sooner that the right starts to become a little more tolerant and open-minded to social and cultural issues and less obstinent, the better for them.

The left's problem remains the same as always: they are disappointing and look feeble against the Republican machine in general.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think I know where you are going with this but I'd rather not respond based on assumptions. So which "narrative" would this be specifically?

OAW

That conservatives are racist, Republicans are racist, the Tea Party is racist etc.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That conservatives are racist, Republicans are racist, the Tea Party is racist etc.

Nah. You are thinking Black and White again.

The narrative is that 30% of conservatives are racist and 60% of them are greatly ill-informed.

The support Herman Cain is getting doesn't change the narrative at all.

That's like saying the support Mitt Romney is getting proves that conservatives support Mormons just as much as Christians. So the discrimination against Mormons don't exist.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Cain is not destructive to the narrative that the right is intolerant, because the racial breakdown of politicians is pretty irrelevant when the vast majority of voting blocks such as African American don't vote Republican.

Of course you're right that the vast majority of African-Americans don't vote Republican and I think this is one of the most glaring and unfortunate examples of Republican messaging failure.

There is no good reason an African-American shouldn't consider a Republican candidate for any office. There are a wealth of brilliant, conservative, African-Americans in the public arena and the louder they become and the more offices they hold, the more people they will appeal to in general.

The right's intolerance is with their rigid ideological stance on pretty much everything under the sun, and overall attitudes on social issues in insisting on everybody fitting in their little box before they'll offer political support. Take homosexuality, for instance. There is very little reason for a gay person or somebody empathetic to homosexuality to vote Republican when the vast majority of those against issues such as gay marriage are Republican. I think groups such as the African American community are empathetic to the struggles for gay rights because it was once them fighting for rights.

What? African-Americans represent the greatest percentages of any race opposed to same-sex marriage, by more than 10% over whites. Do you know any African-Americans?

The Republican party is getting smaller and smaller all the time as they shift further to the right and fracture into subsections such as the whole tea party/establishment thing. In this upcoming election the final vote tally will probably be the usual approx 50% - 50%, but my point is that the party is not setup for growth right now despite this being a prime opportunity (another factor, of course, is the incredibly weak field of candidates vying for presidency).

The Republican Party has never been better poised for growth. They not only swept the midterms, but won a whole bunch of new governorships, all busily redistricting their states to improve their odds throughout the country for years to come.

The sooner that the right starts to become a little more tolerant and open-minded to social and cultural issues and less obstinent, the better for them.

There is absolutely nothing intolerant about Republicans. This is a label to keep it easy for simpletons who can't be bothered to inform themselves enough to challenge their own obstinance. It's too easy to assume single-issue voting for people when they might actually be rounded enough to consider the other 99.9% of a candidate's platform, regardless of the (R) or (D) after their name. Supporting gay marriage does not make you more tolerant of homosexuals anyway.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

So the discrimination against Mormons don't exist.

There's discrimination against Mormons?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That conservatives are racist, Republicans are racist, the Tea Party is racist etc.

OIC. All I can say to that is that I disagree with the premise of that being the "narrative" on the "Left". This is one of those topics where terminology and semantics become critical ... perhaps because different people interpret that word in different ways. So to avoid all that roll with me for a minute ...

racist |ˈrāsist|
noun
a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

At the end of the day when one is talking about that ... it is oriented in how one racial group views other racial groups. The political persuasions of those who think like this can run the gamut. Fortunately, it's now 2011 and I don't think this classic definition of "racist" is very applicable anymore outside of white supremacist and neo-nazi type groups. At least not publicly.

I think for this discussion the issue isn't "racism' per se but "racial animosity". This isn't necessarily oriented in beliefs of inherent superiority or inferiority. But a thesaurus would show that synonyms to "animosity" are ....

antipathy, hostility, friction, antagonism, acrimony, enmity, animus, bitterness, rancor, resentment, dislike, ill feeling/will, bad blood, hatred, hate, loathing; malice, spite, spitefulness.

So "racial animosity" would be such things that are rooted in this social construct we call "race". Now this can be based upon competition for jobs, resources, educational opportunities, and/or social status. It could be rooted in xenophobia or the "fear of the other". Or it could be on some "Bloods vs. Crips" type of sh*t ... where there's no rational basis for the rancor ... it's just rooted in some wear red and some wear blue. So if you are a white guy who gets way more bent out of shape about 10 black women on welfare in the inner city than you are about 100 white women on welfare in a trailer park ... then the shoe fits. If you are a black guy who gets bent out of shape because hispanics are moving into the neighborhood and getting jobs .... but you could care less if other black people moved in from out of state and got those same jobs ... then the shoe fits.

Now with that in mind ... the issue then comes "racial politics". Which we could define as the exploitation of "racial animosity" for political gain. Conservatives .... and note I did not say Democrat or Republican ... have a long and well-documented history of this my friend. The Southern Strategy is a reality. Publicly acknowledged and apologized for by top GOP operatives so I'm definitely not making this up. This isn't to say that all conservatives harbor "racial animosity". But clearly there are a lot of people who harbor "racial animosity" that are conservative. So much so that it is tolerated on the right ... typically with blanket dismissals and denials. In fact, the standard M.O. these days seems to be to "flip the script" and attack anyone who even raises the issue as being the "racist" ... even in the face of documented evidence which backs what they are saying. This isn't to say that there aren't those who harbor "racial animosity" on the left. Without question there are. In the area I'm from it's an overwhelmingly Democratic city. The GOP is a non-factor. But the city is divided along "white democrat" and "black democrat" lines. The "north side" vs the "south side". There's a "white police union" and a "black police union". Same with firefighters. So "racial politics" run rampant here and the GOP doesn't have a thing to do with it. Now I will say that as a political observer I see this phenomenon more at the local level. At the national level you generally don't see "racial politics" going on very much on the left simply because minorities are crucial voting blocs for the Democratic party. We are much more likely to be taken for granted than to experience open political hostility. Whereas it does occur more often on the right at the level because for all intents and purposes ... the GOP is predominantly a party of white men (mostly Southern) and their wives. So these types of shenanigans can be done without regard to electoral consequences ... because the black GOP vote is practically non-existent anyway.

Which brings us back to Herman Cain and whether or not he is a threat to this supposed "narrative". Even if he were to win the GOP nomination it still wouldn't erase the GOP's reputation for exploiting "racial animosity" for political gain. No more than if Alan Keyes had won. Or J.C. Watts. Or Allen West. The reason is because in order to be successful in the GOP these African-American conservatives have to toe the line. Which is denial, dismissal, and flipping the script when issues oriented in "racial animosity" arise. When Herman Cain dared to label the "Niggerhead" sign on Rick Perry's ranch as "insensitive" .... which was about as tepid a response as one could muster ... he was lambasted by his fellow conservative talking heads. Because even something as blatant as that can't be acknowledged for what it is these days on the right. Nor will you see any criticism of Ann Coulter for her "Our blacks are so much better than their blacks." comment from any black conservatives. Or any of the long list of race baiting comments from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan ... whose currently on a book tour lamenting what is in his view is the "demise" of America as a superpower because its "European" identity is diminishing. My point here is that this kind of stuff is so tolerated on the right these days that Pat Buchanan actually felt comfortable publishing a book with a chapter entitled "The End of White America" and promoting it on ... and I'll be charitable ... "white nationalist" radio programs. In any event, my point here is that in order for a "black conservative" to be successful in the modern GOP ... s/he must pretend that such things don't exist.

But don't take my word for it. Here's an article I read by a black conservative several days ago that I think is relevant to this discussion. I won't quote it all because it's too long. You can read it if you are interested. All I will say that there isn't a single thing in it that I as a predominantly center-left guy would disagree with. But here's a key excerpt:

[Martin Luther]King understood this simple fact: There is no moral authority in attacking the shortcomings of blacks while glossing over the sins of the larger society. Certainly, black conservatives are right to differ with black liberals about how racism impacts black advancement today. I understand what some of them are trying to do: get blacks to stop obsessing over what they can't control -- white people's hearts -- and focus on the things they can.

Still, the argument rings hollow. I used to tell my son, "A racist cop may pull you over because you're black, that's his fault; but if he finds drugs in the car, that's your fault." Unlike some conservatives, I don't wish to let either party off the hook.

As long as black conservatives appear to be attack dogs for the white establishment, they will always be a weak and ineffectual voice in the black community. Their views may win them a few elections, sell some books, and earn them the applause of their white counterparts, but it will remain a marginal movement that has no impact in the black community.

Indeed, scarcely any blacks were excited when Michael Steele was elected chairman of the Republican National Committee in 2009 or when Rep. Allen West of Florida and Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina became the first two black Republicans to go to Congress since J.C. Watts of Oklahoma retired in 2003. And while we applaud the chutzpah of Cain and his amazing ability to have outperformed so many career politicians, it's his politics most blacks can't embrace.

Herman Cain and the decline of black conservatism - CNN.com

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is no good reason an African-American shouldn't consider a Republican candidate for any office. There are a wealth of brilliant, conservative, African-Americans in the public arena and the louder they become and the more offices they hold, the more people they will appeal to in general.

There is no good reason for an African-American to not consider a Republican, but there are lots of reasons for not voting for them...

What? African-Americans represent the greatest percentages of any race opposed to same-sex marriage, by more than 10% over whites. Do you know any African-Americans?

I guess my example wasn't very good if this is to be believed, but I would be willing to bet that the reason for this involves a strong religious element, which will always trump the sort of factors I had in mind.

Namely, and this expounds upon my point above:

- anti-welfare
- very cozy with the Christian lobbies (although oddly unJesus-like in their disinterest in helping the needy, but that's another story)
- anti-anything that can be perceived as anti-capitalist
- anti-abortion
- often anti-union
- often against manufactured ways to create new rights for people (e.g. affirmative action)
- economic policies that are anti-middle class/poor
- anti-gun control

I think you'll have a hard time feeling comfortable within the Republican party if your values are a little different than this sort of thing, which is their wheelhouse. This is a pretty narrowly defined sort of ideology, there just happens to be a lot of these sort of people in America. The Democrat wheelhouse, to contrast, is sort of a grab bag of alternatives, it's sort of all over the place which is largely why the party is often unfocused in its messaging.

What does this have to do with anything? Like I said, I don't think the party is racist, but its ideology is intolerant and not terribly inviting to those with differing ideas. There is no rule that says that African-Americans have to have differing ideas, but I think that most non-Christian African-Americans are generally anti-intolerance, and thus by extension anti-Republican.

The Republican Party has never been better poised for growth. They not only swept the midterms, but won a whole bunch of new governorships, all busily redistricting their states to improve their odds throughout the country for years to come.

I don't think this is anything more than the pendulum swinging the other way again, as it has always done and as it always will particularly in a bad economy. What I was saying that the party is locked into the ideological world I described above, which does not make it poised for growth in terms of adding diversity. I did not say that it is not poised to win elections, just not poised for adding some diversity among its voting population. Like I said, there are a ton of conservative Christian type people in this country (although I'd still argue that conservative Christianity is a bastardization).

Supporting gay marriage does not make you more tolerant of homosexuals anyway.

It certainly doesn't hurt. You can't deny that there is a population of people who are not for gay marriage because they generally don't support the existence of homosexuality and do not want to promote it in this fashion.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is no good reason an African-American shouldn't consider a Republican candidate for any office. There are a wealth of brilliant, conservative, African-Americans in the public arena and the louder they become and the more offices they hold, the more people they will appeal to in general.

African-Americans represent the greatest percentages of any race opposed to same-sex marriage[/URL], by more than 10% over whites. Do you know any African-Americans?

It's sad what religion can brainwash people into believing/doing. I understand that blacks in the US are deeply religious.


I lived with 3 black guys for about a year. 2 were liberals, 1 was a Republican conservative who happens to be the oldest.

1 liberal guy keep making everything a racial issue and always play the victim card. I couldn't stand the guy.

The Republican guy keep making excuses for Republicans. He said slavery wasn't that bad. It's liberals who made slavery look worst than it was. He also said Katrina wasn't Pres. Bush's fault and was the fault of the "n*gger Nagin". Yes, he called Nagin a n*gger. I later found out he was gay because he ask me to fix his computer and found out all the gay sites he was visiting. I thought he was married, but divorced.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

There's discrimination against Mormons?

No discrimination at all.

Pres. Obama is proof that racism doesn't exist.

[hyteckit]

Herman Cain says the other Republican candidates should hire someone to accuse them of sexual harassment because it's popular among conservatives.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

There is no good reason for an African-American to not consider a Republican, but there are lots of reasons for not voting for them...

I don't think it's a policy-failure of Republicans, I think it's a branding/messaging failure.

I guess my example wasn't very good if this is to be believed, but I would be willing to bet that the reason for this involves a strong religious element, which will always trump the sort of factors I had in mind.

Right, factors such as; they disagree with you socially and fiscally.

Namely, and this expounds upon my point above:

- anti-welfare

It is not anti-welfare, it is anti- the cost of welfare and the result of welfare. It is against creating a dependency class; "a government that provides everything you need can take everything you have." It creates a moral hazard that eases symptoms while exacerbating root cause.

- very cozy with the Christian lobbies (although oddly unJesus-like in their disinterest in helping the needy, but that's another story)

I disagree and think it's all part of the same story; ignorance. The problem is, you're uninformed. I don't mean that as an insult, but a simple fact that you've demonstrated time and again. You have ideas on things and you simply accept them as true without availing yourself of anything substantive that would challenge the dogma. The fact is, there is no greater force of support for the needy than Christianity in the US. Don't take my word for it, there are a wealth of polls, statistics, and the like that show conservatives traditionally give exponentially more to charity and this is particularly due to its corporate and religious/Christian counterparts.

- anti-anything that can be perceived as anti-capitalist

I'd agree here, but that's not being intolerant. Capitalism is the great equalizer. When people become more interested in insulating risk than acheiving reward, they become dependent upon capitalism's competing interest; an entity with the best-known track record for creating a dependency class.

- anti-abortion

A social ill that impacts the minority communities in the US in the most profound manner and begs questions anyone with information, intellect, and compassion simply can't ignore.

- often anti-union

This is merely cause and effect. Republicans will not be in favor of you appealing directly to the government through bribery, reaping the rewards on everyone else's back. Unlike the argument that the rich are taking from the poor which has no basis in fact, the government literally takes money from you by a legislated percentage.

- often against manufactured ways to create new rights for people (e.g. affirmative action)

It is against measures that distort the market while having no appreciable impact on the intended beneficiary.

- economic policies that are anti-middle class/poor

This is naivete perpetuated by intellectual laziness and has no regard for the product of the contrarian economic policies; showing no appreciable impact on the intended beneficiary longterm.

- anti-gun control

The farther you've gone down this road, the farther you've moved away from anything resembling tolerance. Again, the result of not really thinking things through very thoroughly. Gun control legislation is busy-body bureaucracy that has little to no impact on the intended beneficiaries. Facts, data and the like not supporting the presupposition or the policy.

I think you'll have a hard time feeling comfortable within the Republican party if your values are a little different than this sort of thing, which is their wheelhouse. This is a pretty narrowly defined sort of ideology, there just happens to be a lot of these sort of people in America. The Democrat wheelhouse, to contrast, is sort of a grab bag of alternatives, it's sort of all over the place which is largely why the party is often unfocused in its messaging.

There is absolutely nothing more narrow than your caricature of the right besson. Nothing.

What does this have to do with anything? Like I said, I don't think the party is racist, but its ideology is intolerant and not terribly inviting to those with differing ideas. There is no rule that says that African-Americans have to have differing ideas, but I think that most non-Christian African-Americans are generally anti-intolerance, and thus by extension anti-Republican.

I think you're an east coast liberal who likely doesn't associate with any African-Americans, fashioning presuppositions fed you an emotionally zealous media. You've gone to great lengths to generalize an ideology and after the lecture you gave me about equating one plight with another have no problem equating the right to marry with the right not to be enslaved, beaten, and sold on an auction block.

I don't think this is anything more than the pendulum swinging the other way again, as it has always done and as it always will particularly in a bad economy. What I was saying that the party is locked into the ideological world I described above, which does not make it poised for growth in terms of adding diversity. I did not say that it is not poised to win elections, just not poised for adding some diversity among its voting population. Like I said, there are a ton of conservative Christian type people in this country (although I'd still argue that conservative Christianity is a bastardization).

The Republican message is too complex to be wrapped up in such a narrow fashion and it is not an ideology for the faint of heart. The more offices they hold, the more their message is heard, the more people they will appeal to. All poising them well for growth by any measure.

It certainly doesn't hurt. You can't deny that there is a population of people who are not for gay marriage because they generally don't support the existence of homosexuality and do not want to promote it in this fashion.

Right just as you can fill in the little ballot bubble YES for gay marriage while treating the gay people in your life like crap. Platitudes trump reality and feed on the intellectually lazy.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

At the end of the day when one is talking about that ... it is oriented in how one racial group views other racial groups. The political persuasions of those who think like this can run the gamut. Fortunately, it's now 2011 and I don't think this classic definition of "racist" is very applicable anymore outside of white supremacist and neo-nazi type groups. At least not publicly.

So "racial animosity" would be such things that are rooted in this social construct we call "race". Now this can be based upon competition for jobs, resources, educational opportunities, and/or social status. It could be rooted in xenophobia or the "fear of the other". Or it could be on some "Bloods vs. Crips" type of sh*t ... where there's no rational basis for the rancor ... it's just rooted in some wear red and some wear blue. So if you are a white guy who gets way more bent out of shape about 10 black women on welfare in the inner city than you are about 100 white women on welfare in a trailer park ... then the shoe fits. If you are a black guy who gets bent out of shape because hispanics are moving into the neighborhood and getting jobs .... but you could care less if other black people moved in from out of state and got those same jobs ... then the shoe fits.

I think it's too easy to force a shoe onto a foot using only one standard of fitting. For example, the rural types (100 white women on welfare in trailer parks) also get little to no attention when it comes to schooling, medical services, and civil services. The inner-cities always get more attention because the inner-city is often the financial hub of a city and because of greater congestion and visibility. The shoe may not fit at all if it weren't for those that would force-fit ugly shoes onto people they don't appreciate for ideological differences.

Now with that in mind ... the issue then comes "racial politics". Which we could define as the exploitation of "racial animosity" for political gain. Conservatives .... and note I did not say Democrat or Republican ... have a long and well-documented history of this my friend. The Southern Strategy is a reality. Publicly acknowledged and apologized for by top GOP operatives so I'm definitely not making this up. This isn't to say that all conservatives harbor "racial animosity". But clearly there are a lot of people who harbor "racial animosity" that are conservative. So much so that it is tolerated on the right ... typically with blanket dismissals and denials. In fact, the standard M.O. these days seems to be to "flip the script" and attack anyone who even raises the issue as being the "racist" ... even in the face of documented evidence which backs what they are saying. This isn't to say that there aren't those who harbor "racial animosity" on the left. Without question there are. In the area I'm from it's an overwhelmingly Democratic city. The GOP is a non-factor. But the city is divided along "white democrat" and "black democrat" lines. The "north side" vs the "south side". There's a "white police union" and a "black police union". Same with firefighters. So "racial politics" run rampant here and the GOP doesn't have a thing to do with it. Now I will say that as a political observer I see this phenomenon more at the local level. At the national level you generally don't see "racial politics" going on very much on the left simply because minorities are crucial voting blocs for the Democratic party. We are much more likely to be taken for granted than to experience open political hostility. Whereas it does occur more often on the right at the level because for all intents and purposes ... the GOP is predominantly a party of white men (mostly Southern) and their wives. So these types of shenanigans can be done without regard to electoral consequences ... because the black GOP vote is practically non-existent anyway.

A company may settle a matter out of court not due to guilt, but due to the publicity of the allegation itself being more destructive and the cost of adjudicating the issue in the courts. Otherwise, we've been over this a thousand times and while it may be politically expedient to equate conservatism with racism, it is woefully disingenuous. Let the history of facts show that after a failed attempt to hijack the Republican party (a mostly conservative party then and now; North and South alike, you've equated conservatism with racism in error) they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others including George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, Ross Barnett... In fact, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three were to ever actually become republicans. The fact is, you have a Northern constituency and a southern constituency. Given the demographic makeup of the south, you have a wildly more compact picture of integration and the related racial animosity not only of white on black, but black on white my friend. To frame this as Conservative racial animosity vs Liberal tolerance is patently absurd. This is a southern phenomena. You have essentially one issue to point to when making the indictment -- State's rights. The opposition to States rights also has its share of "racial animosity" in those sanctuary northern states (predominantly Republican/Conservative) being legally obligated to return slaves to their southern owners. I'm sorry, conservatism does not equal racism. The fact is, US conservatives then just as the conservatives with integrity today are classic liberals in seeking to maintain the comparatively new principles of our founding; a limited scope and reach of centralized authority. It was conservatives generally and the Republican party specifically that would prove the most formidable opponents to the segregationists. You've got to hand it to Democrats' messaging however for being able to maintain some monopoly on tolerance while seating a former klansmen among them not to mention Al Gore Sr and on and on...

Which brings us back to Herman Cain and whether or not he is a threat to this supposed "narrative". Even if he were to win the GOP nomination it still wouldn't erase the GOP's reputation for exploiting "racial animosity" for political gain.

You went to great lengths to separate Republicans from the racial animosity only to throw them right back in the mix. No, the Grand Ol' Party does not have the connection to this racial animosity you're pinning on them, but in fact it was the Democratic Party that birthed the most vitriolic efforts against civil rights ever known. Otherwise, the "racial animosity" game has been played like a fiddle for the Democratic hoedown election after election and African-Americans are beginning to see it for the ruse it is. The sooner Democrats understand that African-Americans don't owe them a vote, the better.

No more than if Alan Keyes had won. Or J.C. Watts. Or Allen West. The reason is because in order to be successful in the GOP these African-American conservatives have to toe the line. Which is denial, dismissal, and flipping the script when issues oriented in "racial animosity" arise. When Herman Cain dared to label the "Niggerhead" sign on Rick Perry's ranch as "insensitive" .... which was about as tepid a response as one could muster ... he was lambasted by his fellow conservative talking heads. Because even something as blatant as that can't be acknowledged for what it is these days on the right.

This is of course preposterous. They are as free and open to express themselves as representatives of the GOP as anyone else, but in the context of being politically shrewd you'll have to acknowledge that an African-American representative is not a representative of African-Americans, but of Americans; greater than 70% of which are white. Non-racist white people that comprise the majority of pink-toes in this country do not appreciate being slandered and defined by the minority racist element among them. This is politics, not racial animosity toward or the hot-coal walking of a black GOP candidate.

Nor will you see any criticism of Ann Coulter for her "Our blacks are so much better than their blacks." comment from any black conservatives.

Seriously, what on earth is the problem with this? Allow me to reiterate; our black representatives are better than theirs. You've got the new Dixiecrats of MSNBC sicking Toure on Cain claiming Cain is a minstrel and citing "black predatory sexuality... let's see how they support their new black friend when they find out he's harassing white, blonde women." Really? Any black Democrats going to step up? No, of course they don't have to. They have the monopoly on tolerance.

Or any of the long list of race baiting comments from the likes of Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer who is not concerned of charges of racism against him because they are absurd and perpetuated by those who don't know a thing about him. His points about leftist hypocrisy on race are legendary. He gets lambasted because he's correct.

... or Pat Buchanan ... whose currently on a book tour lamenting what is in his view is the "demise" of America as a superpower because its "European" identity is diminishing.

You misunderstand Pat Buchanon on this point. Please watch this. He uses California as the illustration of his point and it's primarily directed towards immigration and the political persuasions of contributing to the system as opposed to merely benefitting from it.

My point here is that this kind of stuff is so tolerated on the right these days that Pat Buchanan actually felt comfortable publishing a book with a chapter entitled "The End of White America" and promoting it on ... and I'll be charitable ... "white nationalist" radio programs. In any event, my point here is that in order for a "black conservative" to be successful in the modern GOP ... s/he must pretend that such things don't exist.

Racial animosity exists, but to use it in making an argument against a political philosophy by virtue of a limited awareness of their ideals and their proponents is fallacious, hypocritical, and misinformed.

But don't take my word for it. Here's an article I read by a black conservative several days ago that I think is relevant to this discussion. I won't quote it all because it's too long. You can read it if you are interested. All I will say that there isn't a single thing in it that I as a predominantly center-left guy would disagree with. But here's a key excerpt:

OAW

Black conservatives who dare to espouse a right-of-center platform to an overwhelmingly white constituency are deemed "conservative attack dogs" while the left are free to dispatch any number of their attack dogs without scrutiny. What can I say, I vehemently disagree with the good reverend on this one.

[ironknee]

wow...cain 4 pres!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Great post, ebuddy!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Otherwise, the "racial animosity" game has been played like a fiddle for the Democratic hoedown election after election and African-Americans are beginning to see it for the ruse it is. The sooner Democrats understand that African-Americans don't owe them a vote, the better.

When the Republicans stop advocating anti-minority policies, Democrats will stop attacking Republicans for their anti-minority polices. That's not a fiddle, that's reality.

You've got the new Dixiecrats of MSNBC sicking Toure on Cain claiming Cain is a minstrel and citing "black predatory sexuality... let's see how they support their new black friend when they find out he's harassing white, blonde women." Really? Any black Democrats going to step up?

Since that only happened in your confused mind, no, there won't be a response. Toure isn't attacking black people here, he's predicting a racist backlash by whites against Cain because "he's attacking our women." You've completely mangled Toure's point.

Black conservatives who dare to espouse a right-of-center platform to an overwhelmingly white constituency are deemed "conservative attack dogs" while the left are free to dispatch any number of their attack dogs without scrutiny.

Without scrutiny? Says the guy who misrepresented and attacked Toure only a few paragraphs ago, and attacks "liberal attack dogs" like Sharpe on a routine basis.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it's too easy to force a shoe onto a foot using only one standard of fitting. For example, the rural types (100 white women on welfare in trailer parks) also get little to no attention when it comes to schooling, medical services, and civil services. The inner-cities always get more attention because the inner-city is often the financial hub of a city and because of greater congestion and visibility. The shoe may not fit at all if it weren't for those that would force-fit ugly shoes onto people they don't appreciate for ideological differences.

You raise an interesting point ... one that was actually mentioned here. It still doesn't change the fact that Reagan rode the "Cadillac driving welfare queen" narrative till the wheels fell off. Why? Because given the backdrop of racialized misperceptions with respect to crime, drugs, and poverty perpetuated by the mainstream media .... it was effective political strategy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A company may settle a matter out of court not due to guilt, but due to the publicity of the allegation itself being more destructive and the cost of adjudicating the issue in the courts. Otherwise, we've been over this a thousand times and while it may be politically expedient to equate conservatism with racism, it is woefully disingenuous.

Well that would be a neat trick if that was actually what I said. In fact, I specifically said quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let the history of facts show that after a failed attempt to hijack the Republican party (a mostly conservative party then and now; North and South alike, you've equated conservatism with racism in error) they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others including George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, Ross Barnett... In fact, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three were to ever actually become republicans.

We have had this conversation before my friend. So I'll reiterate what I said before as a rebuttal to this point you keep making. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying here at all. What I'm saying is that it's irrelevant. The issue isn't what happened to a handful of Dixiecrat politicians and whether they went GOP or returned to the Democratic fold. On the contrary ... the issue is what happened to Southern white voters. And when viewed through that lens the impact of the white backlash against the legislative and societal changes brought about by the Civil Rights Movement is clear and undeniable. The Dems lost the South to the GOP for (well over a) generation ... as LBJ predicted. And no ... the reason for that had nothing to do with differences in political philosophy with regard to "limited government", "national security", "government spending", etc. The point here is this ....

The controversy unfortunately obscures the larger point, which should be undeniable: the central role of this backlash in the rise of the modern conservative movement.

The centrality of race — and, in particular, of the switch of Southern whites from overwhelming support of Democrats to overwhelming support of Republicans — is obvious from voting data.

For example, everyone knows that white men have turned away from the Democrats over God, guns, national security and so on. But what everyone knows isn’t true once you exclude the South from the picture. As the political scientist Larry Bartels points out, in the 1952 presidential election 40 percent of non-Southern white men voted Democratic; in 2004, that figure was virtually unchanged, at 39 percent.

More than 40 years have passed since the Voting Rights Act, which Reagan described in 1980 as “humiliating to the South.” Yet Southern white voting behavior remains distinctive. Democrats decisively won the [2006]popular vote in last year’s House elections, but Southern whites voted Republican by almost two to one.

The G.O.P.’s own leaders admit that the great Southern white shift was the result of a deliberate political strategy. “Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization.” So declared Ken Mehlman, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, speaking in 2005.

Republicans and Race - New York Times

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact is, you have a Northern constituency and a southern constituency. Given the demographic makeup of the south, you have a wildly more compact picture of integration and the related racial animosity not only of white on black, but black on white my friend. To frame this as Conservative racial animosity vs Liberal tolerance is patently absurd.

But I didn't. I do recall giving a pretty detailed example of this with respect to Democratic politics in my area.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is a southern phenomena. You have essentially one issue to point to when making the indictment -- State's rights. The opposition to States rights also has its share of "racial animosity" in those sanctuary northern states (predominantly Republican/Conservative) being legally obligated to return slaves to their southern owners. I'm sorry, conservatism does not equal racism.

Here you start off by saying something that makes it pretty clear that we really aren't that far apart in our assessment of the situation. And then you end it by once again citing this argument that I never made.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact is, US conservatives then just as the conservatives with integrity today are classic liberals in seeking to maintain the comparatively new principles of our founding; a limited scope and reach of centralized authority. It was conservatives generally and the Republican party specifically that would prove the most formidable opponents to the segregationists. You've got to hand it to Democrats' messaging however for being able to maintain some monopoly on tolerance while seating a former klansmen among them not to mention Al Gore Sr and on and on...

You make a valid point from a historical perspective. I just think you choose to overlook the reason for the modern day differences in perception.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You went to great lengths to separate Republicans from the racial animosity only to throw them right back in the mix. No, the Grand Ol' Party does not have the connection to this racial animosity you're pinning on them, but in fact it was the Democratic Party that birthed the most vitriolic efforts against civil rights ever known. Otherwise, the "racial animosity" game has been played like a fiddle for the Democratic hoedown election after election and African-Americans are beginning to see it for the ruse it is. The sooner Democrats understand that African-Americans don't owe them a vote, the better.

Again you are correct from a historical perspective. As I'm sure you are aware, African-Americans were solidly GOP from the Civil War until The New Deal under FDR. Even then they remained majority GOP voters until the landmark Civil Rights legislative victories signed into law by LBJ. This is why someone like Condoleeza Rice could grow up in the same Birmingham neighborhood and attend school with one of the four girls killed in the terrorist bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church ... yet her family had been Republicans for generations. The point I'm making here is that the political dynamic changed after 1964. Nationally the GOP had been in the minority for decades and the GOP wanted to obtain the political power that being the majority party afforded. So I'm NOT "equating conservatism with racism". What I'm saying ... and what the historical record reflects ... is that the GOP chose to achieve this objective by employing a political strategy of exploiting the "racial animosity" of the Southern white electorate for its own political gain. It's a numbers game. Again, if outside of the South white voting patterns haven't changed appreciably since 1952 ... and the African-Americans voting patterns have been solidly Democratic since 1964 ... then the only game in town was to go after the votes of those inside the South. And the easiest way to get that particular portion of the electorate to go against their traditional voting patterns ... even to vote against their own economic interests some might argue .... was to campaign in a manner that would allow them to turn their emotional backlash against the Civil Rights Movement and the changes to the social order it wrought into a political backlash. To his credit ... under President G.W. Bush tried to tone that down because demographically speaking it's a losing political strategy in the long run. He wisely saw the political opportunity in appealing to Latino voters and perhaps eventually turning them into a majority GOP voting bloc. Even John McCain was on board with that. But today that approach has been all but abandoned by the GOP. The GOP base has moved so far to the right that nearly all the presidential candidates are falling all over themselves trying to show who has more anti-immigration sentiment.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is of course preposterous. They are as free and open to express themselves as representatives of the GOP as anyone else, but in the context of being politically shrewd you'll have to acknowledge that an African-American representative is not a representative of African-Americans, but of Americans; greater than 70% of which are white. Non-racist white people that comprise the majority of pink-toes in this country do not appreciate being slandered and defined by the minority racist element among them. This is politics, not racial animosity toward or the hot-coal walking of a black GOP candidate.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. The Colin Powell's, Condi Rice's, or even the Michael Steele's of the world seem to manage to be exemplary GOP reps ... yet they don't resort to this type of foolishness. Which is why they don't raise the sort of ire that the Alan Keye's, Allen West's, and Clarence Thomas' of the world do among their more politically astute African-Americans. But I must say .... "pink-toes"? Hadn't heard that one in ages. Awesome!

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Seriously, what on earth is the problem with this? Allow me to reiterate; our black representatives are better than theirs. You've got the new Dixiecrats of MSNBC sicking Toure on Cain claiming Cain is a minstrel and citing "black predatory sexuality... let's see how they support their new black friend when they find out he's harassing white, blonde women." Really? Any black Democrats going to step up? No, of course they don't have to. They have the monopoly on tolerance.

Well I'm not familiar with Mr. Toure's commentary specifically. But I have seen some rather highly charged commentary ... some of which I thought was overstated ... in reaction to some of Mr. Cain's statements or statements made about him by his fellow conservatives (e.g. leaving the Democratic "plantation", Cain is more "authentically black" than Obama, "high tech lynching", etc.) Statements that if anyone on the left had made would have have been met with instant charges of "playing the race card". In any event, perhaps Mr. Toure had a point? Apparently, Cain's support has plummeted from 40% to 19% in a matter of days:

Among likely Republican voters surveyed Sunday, Nov. 6, Cain led the field with 40 percent. On Monday, he was third with 22 percent. By Wednesday, just 19 percent of those surveyed said they supported Cain for the nomination.

“It does appear that the stories are certainly hurting him,” said Republican pollster Ed Goeas of The Tarrance Group, who helped conduct the bipartisan poll. “As this moves forward, I think it does become more and more a deal-breaker.”

Post-allegations, the Cain drain - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

As for Ann Coulter ... it was just an astonishingly stupid thing to say. Even if she meant it the way you mean it ... there were certainly ways of expressing that don't come off like something you'd hear in a Civil Rights Movement documentary ... "Our nigras is happy down here." I'm just saying ....

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You misunderstand Pat Buchanon on this point. Please watch this. He uses California as the illustration of his point and it's primarily directed towards immigration and the political persuasions of contributing to the system as opposed to merely benefitting from it.

Oh I understand his point quite well. A point that is rooted in the fundamental belief that minorities end up consuming more tax dollars than they pay ... so therefore they are a net drag on the entire system. And as they become the majority in California the inevitable result is that it will go bankrupt. Now this fundamental belief is BS and you certainly didn't see him cite any numbers to back it up. Just like he didn't mention that perhaps the root cause of California's systemic budget issues is the absolutely insane 2/3 majority vote requirement for passing a budget. A requirement that essentially makes the state ungovernable ... especially in a down economy. Nope ... it's gotta be a black/brown majority that is the source of California's fiscal woes.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Raddow Maddow has decided that Cain's campaign isn't serious, it's satirical performance art. I hadn't heard of half of these gaffes (Pokemon? Really?), so the complete absurdity of this campaign didn't jump out at me. I just thought he was just an idiot, but it seems he's maybe playing for the idiots to make a point.

I mean, the campaign ad with the silly I AM AMERICA song - they must have known about Colbert's book with that title.

If he's been playing everyone for fools, since the Republican base is so filled with fools, they love him. They love him for the same reason Stephen Colbert was invited to the Press Corp dinner: they were too stupid to recognize that Colbert's character is a mockery of conservatism. I think Poe's Law is at work here.

We are talking about a guy who wants to tax the hell outta the poor. That can't be for real. It just can't.

[Shaddim]

mckenna and I don't like each other, I think he's an ass. But we agree here. I think Cain's a type of modern Bullworth. I believe the campaign is a big attempt at satire, just to see how far he can go before someone calls him on it. It's really been fun to watch, but I've been pretty sure this has been a joke since the whole yellow flowers/smoking guy thing. The 9-9-9 pizza thing was brilliant too.

[Shaddim]

This all reminds me of when I was attending college. A good friend of mine ran for student body president. He did it as a joke to poke fun at the shallowness of the political process and laugh at everyone involved. At the debate he answered the questions in a bizarre manner, he'd say something like "we need to make an effort to address this, it's at the top of my agenda and I won't falter until I've looked into the matter". The end of his big speech, which he attributed to "a great philosopher", was:

"The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
Today and tomorrow are yet to be said.
The chances, the changes are all yours to make.
The mold of your life is in your hands to break."

Yeah, you guessed it.

He'd call people in the student body that disagreed with him Orcs and his followers as Shirefolk and Elves. He'd go to rallies wearing Frazetta t-shirts, smoking a large pipe. When asked how he'd motivate the students to be more responsible with school property he said, "where there's a whip, there's a way". The joke was on him though, he almost won, even after he let everyone in on it and said that he'd just been screwing with them. He would have been miserable for a year, but it would have been a riot to see what he would have done.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

mckenna and I don't like each other, I think he's an ass. But we agree here. I think Cain's a type of modern Bullworth. I believe the campaign is a big attempt at satire, just to see how far he can go before someone calls him on it. It's really been fun to watch, but I've been pretty sure this has been a joke since the whole yellow flowers/smoking guy thing. The 9-9-9 pizza thing was brilliant too.

Here's a question: Which option would be more comforting? That this is all a gag, but he was able to pull this over on so many of us, or that this is all real, and he's able to gain this much traction?

Neither sits well with me. (As for the number patterns I recall Maddow displaying, they seem to me as a classic case of finding patterns in coincidence)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's a question: Which option would be more comforting? That this is all a gag, but he was able to pull this over on so many of us, or that this is all real, and he's able to gain this much traction?

Neither sits well with me. (As for the number patterns I recall Maddow displaying, they seem to me as a classic case of finding patterns in coincidence)

I don't care which, but I think it's the former, I really do. Personally, when it comes to politics I prefer the chaos to comfort, it's more entertaining.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

You raise an interesting point ... one that was actually mentioned here. It still doesn't change the fact that Reagan rode the "Cadillac driving welfare queen" narrative till the wheels fell off. Why? Because given the backdrop of racialized misperceptions with respect to crime, drugs, and poverty perpetuated by the mainstream media .... it was effective political strategy.

I'm sorry OAW, this narrative simply doesn't square with anything Reagan said or did as President. It's an argument that can neither be substantiated nor countered. For example, you'll say he opposed X and I'll say he opposed it because Y and you'll say it was because of Z or he supported X and I'll say it was due to a reasoned, logical conservative principle of Y and you'll say it was because of Z and so on.

Well that would be a neat trick if that was actually what I said. In fact, I specifically said quite the opposite.

You have a tendency to go back and forth on this, from GOP to Conservative, then separating the GOP before you include them, and claiming you're not indicting conservatives when it is patently clear that you are.

Originally Posted by OAW

Conservatives .... and note I did not say Democrat or Republican ... have a long and well-documented history of this my friend.

Okay so... Conservatives have a long and well-documented history of civil rights activism (through the Republican party) and the Democratic party does not (which must be excluding liberals, although none of this can be substantiated), until a paradigm shift in the late 60's turned the Democrats into liberals and Republicans into conservative racists for a single political strategy in the south of questionable value nationally, leading to the perception that it is the Republican party that should be avoided because of conservative intolerance. Sorry man, it just doesn't gel. The country has always been right-of-center and has always self-identified as conservative. There was no paradigm shift. The segregationists of the left attempted to hijack the Republican party, dominantly conservative in both its northern and southern constituencies, failed to garner enough support and returned to the Democratic party where the platform of dependency creation was waiting for them with opened arms.

Let's take another look at that Southern Strategy (as if labeling it makes it more an evil conservative agenda than the decades long "strategy" of liberal civil rights obstructionism.) I'll remind you of some history I had to remind others of in the past;
There were two Southern demographics at play; the peripheral south such as Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas where race played a much less significant role in politics and the deep south such as Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana. The deep South was comprised of much larger African-American communities and racial conflict was much more apparent through the 50s and '60s and defined their politics. (just to ensure you would acknowledge a much longer history of racial "strategizing") If the shift in voting bloc during this time was in fact the connection of Republicans/Conservatives to racism and was contingent upon white solidarity, why did they not fare more effectively among whites in the Deep South (Wallace's base, you know... the guy who accused Nixon of wanting to desegregate the south?) than in the peripheral South? The truth is the GOP should have been more popular than the Dems among the less educated, working-class whites who did not comprise its primary voting bloc elsewhere in the country. In fact, the GOP would fare much worse than the Dems in regions with the heavier racial component. Even more telling is the fact that as the Southern electorate aged over the next several decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era. This was also not the case. If there was a GOP "Southern Strategy", what do you call the long and storied past of the Democratic party... tolerance? I bring this to your attention OAW because you're reasoning may be true to your perceptions, but it is rooted in a double-standard that frankly has no regard for facts because they are not politically expedient.

We have had this conversation before my friend. So I'll reiterate what I said before as a rebuttal to this point you keep making. I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying here at all. What I'm saying is that it's irrelevant. The issue isn't what happened to a handful of Dixiecrat politicians and whether they went GOP or returned to the Democratic fold. On the contrary ... the issue is what happened to Southern white voters. And when viewed through that lens the impact of the white backlash against the legislative and societal changes brought about by the Civil Rights Movement is clear and undeniable. The Dems lost the South to the GOP for (well over a) generation ... as LBJ predicted. And no ... the reason for that had nothing to do with differences in political philosophy with regard to "limited government", "national security", "government spending", etc. The point here is this ....

There are well-documented economic factors such as the postwar economic boom of the south leading to the explosion of a new, wealthy suburban bloc. They began voting in greater numbers for those they felt best represented a stronger economy evidenced by the fact that the white working class continued voting Democrat (even in areas of large black populations) until the 90's. Another example of this phenomena; In the 50s, 43% of Southerners in the bottom third income voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while the highest third income voted 53% Republican. By the 80s, those figures changed to 51% and 77% respectively. In short, wealthy southerners shifted massively to the right while poorer ones did not. It's the economy stupid.

If this is interesting to you, a study was produced and published as The End of Southern Exceptionalism in which they break down the history of voting patterns exhaustively.

Republicans and Race - New York Times

Really? Here's Rush Limbaugh's take on Democrats and Race. The fact of the matter is that the country has always been right-of-center. Suffice it to say, I'm not interested in what Krugman has to say about Republicans and Race.

But I didn't. I do recall giving a pretty detailed example of this with respect to Democratic politics in my area.

So you're aware of their past and witness to their present and you're voting for them based on a general platform for which you agree right? Perfectly acceptable and noble. Unfortunately, you insist on demonizing an opposing platform for a "racial animosity" that in fact has a much more substantive history among those you're supporting.

Here you start off by saying something that makes it pretty clear that we really aren't that far apart in our assessment of the situation. And then you end it by once again citing this argument that I never made.

Because you continue to move back and forth with who you place the crux of blame for this racial animosity. You’re welcome to oppose any political philosophy you choose, but to use "racial animosity" in any way to support your persuasion is patently absurd to me. Racial animosity can no more define Republicans OR Conservatives than it can Democrats OR Liberals so I have no other choice, but to believe you're doing this for political expedience.

You make a valid point from a historical perspective. I just think you choose to overlook the reason for the modern day differences in perception.
Again you are correct from a historical perspective. As I'm sure you are aware, African-Americans were solidly GOP from the Civil War until The New Deal under FDR. Even then they remained majority GOP voters until the landmark Civil Rights legislative victories signed into law by LBJ. This is why someone like Condoleeza Rice could grow up in the same Birmingham neighborhood and attend school with one of the four girls killed in the terrorist bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church ... yet her family had been Republicans for generations. The point I'm making here is that the political dynamic changed after 1964. Nationally the GOP had been in the minority for decades and the GOP wanted to obtain the political power that being the majority party afforded. So I'm NOT "equating conservatism with racism". What I'm saying ... and what the historical record reflects ... is that the GOP chose to achieve this objective by employing a political strategy of exploiting the "racial animosity" of the Southern white electorate for its own political gain. It's a numbers game. Again, if outside of the South white voting patterns haven't changed appreciably since 1952 ... and the African-Americans voting patterns have been solidly Democratic since 1964 ... then the only game in town was to go after the votes of those inside the South. And the easiest way to get that particular portion of the electorate to go against their traditional voting patterns ... even to vote against their own economic interests some might argue .... was to campaign in a manner that would allow them to turn their emotional backlash against the Civil Rights Movement and the changes to the social order it wrought into a political backlash. To his credit ... under President G.W. Bush tried to tone that down because demographically speaking it's a losing political strategy in the long run. He wisely saw the political opportunity in appealing to Latino voters and perhaps eventually turning them into a majority GOP voting bloc. Even John McCain was on board with that. But today that approach has been all but abandoned by the GOP. The GOP base has moved so far to the right that nearly all the presidential candidates are falling all over themselves trying to show who has more anti-immigration sentiment.

It's not that I choose to overlook the perception problem, it's that I choose to combat it at every turn. A perception of history developed without the historical perspective you've granted me, is lame. After having fought long and hard alongside blacks for their freedom and prosperity, Republicans could begin to focus on the remainder of their platform; fiscal discipline and the economy. While Democrats fought long and hard to maintain segregation, they've gotten away with pinning this albatross on Republicans because of a few willing recipients. Simply put, Republicans have done a shoddy job of branding themselves and no amount of apologizing for the same ills inherent in and perpetuated by their opposition is going to help them. I'm a Michael Steele fan, but in this he's simply dead-wrong. All of our woes are socio-economic. Every last one. It's about the economy.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. The Colin Powell's, Condi Rice's, or even the Michael Steele's of the world seem to manage to be exemplary GOP reps ... yet they don't resort to this type of foolishness. Which is why they don't raise the sort of ire that the Alan Keye's, Allen West's, and Clarence Thomas' of the world do among their more politically astute African-Americans. But I must say .... "pink-toes"? Hadn't heard that one in ages. Awesome!

What can I say, most of my friends are black and while we generally don't get into politics, I've increased my vocabulary.

Unfunny story;
I apparently have such good rapport with blacks in general that the owner of a company I used to work for claimed he couldn't put me in the same branch as another particular supervisor (black woman) because we'd have "two black people running the branch." No lie, he was a white, male, well established card-carrying liberal democrat who actively supported our local politicians. He was eventually chased out of town for shirking the unemployment obligations he owed to those who lost their jobs when his company went bankrupt. One of the many little anecdotes of life experience that helped develop my political leanings.

Well I'm not familiar with Mr. Toure's commentary specifically. But I have seen some rather highly charged commentary ... some of which I thought was overstated ... in reaction to some of Mr. Cain's statements or statements made about him by his fellow conservatives (e.g. leaving the Democratic "plantation", Cain is more "authentically black" than Obama, "high tech lynching", etc.) Statements that if anyone on the left had made would have have been met with instant charges of "playing the race card". In any event, perhaps Mr. Toure had a point? Apparently, Cain's support has plummeted from 40% to 19% in a matter of days:

You're defending this knucklehead? Cain didn't plummet because of alleged sexual harrasment as he actually went up a few points and amassed quite a sum of money for his campaign shortly after the stories broke. He plummeted because of a remarkable inability to address very basic policy questions. Perry plummeted as profoundly if not more profoundly than Cain and continues his decline... I wonder how you and Toure might explain this.

As for Ann Coulter ... it was just an astonishingly stupid thing to say. Even if she meant it the way you mean it ... there were certainly ways of expressing that don't come off like something you'd hear in a Civil Rights Movement documentary ... "Our nigras is happy down here." I'm just saying ....

You can oppose ideology without the slander my friend. This pales in comparison to what is said of black conservatives and those who defend them, but you continue to show a remarkable double-standard on this OAW. She meant it just the way she said it, just as Toure meant what he said and while one is exponentially more racially insensitive than the other, Anne Coulter gets the brunt of your ire.

Oh I understand his point quite well. A point that is rooted in the fundamental belief that minorities end up consuming more tax dollars than they pay ... so therefore they are a net drag on the entire system.

With all due respect OAW, I don't think you do. He's an academic who wrote a book using a wealth of information I'm certain you've not given fair enough reading to critique in any meaningful way. Minorities end up consuming more in social services per capita, yes. It is unfortunate, but true. As minority populations grow so grows consumption of social services. Poverty is cyclical perpetuated by its own growth. As minorities continue to grow into the dependency class, they continue to consume a greater amount of social services. Yes, people who are consuming social services are less apt to vote for any policy that would jeopardize them. At some point, the contributors' resources are exhausted by consumption and you have fiscal decline. Now let’s be clear here when we talk about minorities; there are a number of any race that excel beyond the poverty statistic and of course this is what we want to see, but they will flee from the areas of poverty. It is not the birthrate of minorities (or whites for that matter) that causes the problem because over time we can absorb this modest increase with economic growth and those enjoying the growth will be more invested in the system with greater propensity to vote Republican (just like back in the day), but the phenomena of 4-10 million new illegal immigrants each year constitutes a massive infusion of new funding obligations that place an undeniable strain on the financial well-being of a State that is home to the majority of illegal immigrants in this country. This chases out the native-born and prosperous because they are the ones funding the growing obligation. This chases out those who contribute to the system and vote Republican. It is not minorities per se that are a net-drag on the system, but the dependency class that will not vote to eliminate the source of their survival. If facts are racist, it's not Patrick Buchanan's fault.

And as they become the majority in California the inevitable result is that it will go bankrupt.

California is already bankrupt.

Now this fundamental belief is BS and you certainly didn't see him cite any numbers to back it up.

It was a 5-minute segment to sell a book OAW. If you’re interested in the data within, perhaps you’ll buy it.

Just like he didn't mention that perhaps the root cause of California's systemic budget issues is the absolutely insane 2/3 majority vote requirement for passing a budget. A requirement that essentially makes the state ungovernable ... especially in a down economy. Nope ... it's gotta be a black/brown majority that is the source of California's fiscal woes.

At least nine states require a super-majority for budget passage including Hawaii, Connecticut, Maine, Nebraska, and Rhode Island. They are not facing near the fiscal crisis California is facing. I get this, simply pass tax increases to fund the growing obligation thereby chasing out the funders of it (black, brown, and white alike) while at no point allowing any discussion of curbing the growing obligation lest you appear racist or intolerant. That way we can tip toe around the root cause and spend more time and money on symptoms and the Democrats that need them. No thanks. my partisan rant

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm sorry OAW, this narrative simply doesn't square with anything Reagan said or did as President. It's an argument that can neither be substantiated nor countered.

Surely you're not saying I'm making this up? It was Reagan who introduced the term "welfare queen" into the political lexicon during the 1976 GOP Presidential Primary. It became a key component of his stump speeches during the 1976 and 1980 Presidential campaigns.

The term "welfare queen" is most often associated with Ronald Reagan who brought the idea to a national audience. During his 1976 presidential campaign, Reagan would tell the story of a woman from Chicago's South Side who was arrested for welfare fraud:

"She has eighty names, thirty addresses, twelve Social Security cards and is collecting veteran's benefits on four non-existing deceased husbands. And she is collecting Social Security on her cards. She's got Medicaid, getting food stamps, and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax-free cash income is over $150,000."

Since Reagan never named a particular woman, the description can be viewed as an example of dramatic hyperbole. Despite claims that the woman never existed, the story seems to have been drawn from newspaper reports at the time. In 1976, the New York Times reported that a woman from Chicago, Linda Taylor, was charged with using four aliases and of cheating the government out of $8,000. She appeared again in the newspaper while the Illinois Attorney General continued investigating her case. The woman was ultimately found guilty of "welfare fraud and perjury" in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.[8]

Welfare queen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or just google it and see for yourself that this is not a figment of my imagination.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You have a tendency to go back and forth on this, from GOP to Conservative, then separating the GOP before you include them, and claiming you're not indicting conservatives when it is patently clear that you are.

Well unfortunately these things don't always fit nice and neatly into a designated box my friend. Anything that deals with "race" at its core simply won't in the US since the last time I checked white people spanned the political spectrum. What I will say is that my historical and modern day observation has been that the further to the right one goes the more likely one is to see overt "racial animosity" directed towards minorities. Not to say you won't see it on the left. But let's be honest here .... are you more likely to see white nationalist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens at a Tea Party rally or at a OWS protest? I'm just saying ...

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The truth is the GOP should have been more popular than the Dems among the less educated, working-class whites who did not comprise its primary voting bloc elsewhere in the country. In fact, the GOP would fare much worse than the Dems in regions with the heavier racial component. Even more telling is the fact that as the Southern electorate aged over the next several decades, older voters should have identified as Republicans at higher rates than younger ones raised in a less racist era. This was also not the case. If there was a GOP "Southern Strategy", what do you call the long and storied past of the Democratic party... tolerance? I bring this to your attention OAW because you're reasoning may be true to your perceptions, but it is rooted in a double-standard that frankly has no regard for facts because they are not politically expedient.

I'm not sure what you are getting at considering how white, Southern Democrats are virtually extinct now?

Politics in the South: The long goodbye | The Economist

And what do I call the "long and storied past of the Democratic party" in the South? The Southern Democrats were the "pro-slavery" wing of the Democratic party. They opposed the more liberal Northern wing of the Democratic party. And they were most definitely on the other side of the fence of the anti-slavery GOP. The Southern Democrats seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. When the Confederacy was defeated in the Civil War ... southern white resentment toward the GOP (led by President Abraham Lincoln) ran deep during the Reconstruction era. The Southern Democrats were the party of "State's Rights" and would remain that way until the landmark Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.

As the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left (at least economically), Southern Democrats largely stayed as conservative as they had always been, with some even breaking off to form farther right-wing splinters like the Dixiecrats. After the Civil Rights Movement successfully challenged the Jim Crow laws and other forms of institutionalized racism, and after the Democrats as a whole came to symbolize the mainstream left of the United States, the form, if not the content, of Southern Democratic politics began to change. At that point, most Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party, and helped accelerate the latter's transformation into a more conservative organization.

Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bottom line here is that when it comes to the GOP ... the name may be the same but there is a vast difference between the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Reagan. The same can be said of the Democrats. The Democratic party of 2010 is very different than the Democratic party of 1910 ... especially in the South.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are well-documented economic factors such as the postwar economic boom of the south leading to the explosion of a new, wealthy suburban bloc. They began voting in greater numbers for those they felt best represented a stronger economy evidenced by the fact that the white working class continued voting Democrat (even in areas of large black populations) until the 90's. Another example of this phenomena; In the 50s, 43% of Southerners in the bottom third income voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while the highest third income voted 53% Republican. By the 80s, those figures changed to 51% and 77% respectively. In short, wealthy southerners shifted massively to the right while poorer ones did not. It's the economy stupid.

Check out this voting map by county here for the 2008 Presidential Election.



Pay particular attention to the South. Anywhere outside of areas along the Texas border with Mexico with its predominantly Hispanic population and the major metropolitan areas of Dallas, Houston, Galveston, etc. .... and the majority African-American counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Georgia .... it's a sea of red and not just in the "burbs". Including those predominantly white and rural areas that are broker than the 10 Commandments.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If this is interesting to you, a study was produced and published as The End of Southern Exceptionalism in which they break down the history of voting patterns exhaustively.

I'll definitely check it out.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact of the matter is that the country has always been right-of-center.

When it comes to self-identification? You are absolutely right. When it comes to the positions people take on individual issues? Not so much.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So you're aware of their past and witness to their present and you're voting for them based on a general platform for which you agree right? Perfectly acceptable and noble. Unfortunately, you insist on demonizing an opposing platform for a "racial animosity" that in fact has a much more substantive history among those you're supporting.

Let me put it to you like this. It's not about an ideological platform per se. It's about the historical record. If "Southern white conservatives" were pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow, opposed to anti-lynching legislation, proponents of anti-miscegenation laws, opposed to the Civil Rights Movement, opposed to integration in public accommodations, opposed to integration in public schools, etc. ... then what difference does it make to the vast majority of African-Americans today what their political affiliation du jour is ... when the issue is the overall hostility this demographic has exhibited toward our people for centuries? Or minorities in general? In my grandfather's day this particular demographic aligned themselves with Democrats. In my day they align themselves with Republicans. But this is a distinction without a difference because it's the same ole sh*t warmed over ... just presented in a much more genteel fashion since overt displays of such attitudes are frowned upon in modern society. It would be one thing if the dog whistle politics were largely ineffective these days and were a thing of the past. Unfortunately, that's just not the way it is .

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

After having fought long and hard alongside blacks for their freedom and prosperity, Republicans could begin to focus on the remainder of their platform; fiscal discipline and the economy. While Democrats fought long and hard to maintain segregation, they've gotten away with pinning this albatross on Republicans because of a few willing recipients. Simply put, Republicans have done a shoddy job of branding themselves and no amount of apologizing for the same ills inherent in and perpetuated by their opposition is going to help them. I'm a Michael Steele fan, but in this he's simply dead-wrong. All of our woes are socio-economic. Every last one. It's about the economy.

Again ... this isn't a Democrat or GOP issue. Look at the vote tallies for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

Now let's put aside the fact that the Dems supported this legislation more than the GOP in terms of absolute and per capita votes. My point here is that this was a Northern vs. Southern issue. Not a single Southern Republican supported it. Just like the vast majority of Southern Democrats didn't support it. What do you see as the common denominator my friend?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Unfunny story;
I apparently have such good rapport with blacks in general that the owner of a company I used to work for claimed he couldn't put me in the same branch as another particular supervisor (black woman) because we'd have "two black people running the branch." No lie, he was a white, male, well established card-carrying liberal democrat who actively supported our local politicians. He was eventually chased out of town for shirking the unemployment obligations he owed to those who lost their jobs when his company went bankrupt. One of the many little anecdotes of life experience that helped develop my political leanings.

Oh I can believe it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With all due respect OAW, I don't think you do. He's an academic who wrote a book using a wealth of information I'm certain you've not given fair enough reading to critique in any meaningful way. Minorities end up consuming more in social services per capita, yes. It is unfortunate, but true. As minority populations grow so grows consumption of social services. Poverty is cyclical perpetuated by its own growth. As minorities continue to grow into the dependency class, they continue to consume a greater amount of social services. Yes, people who are consuming social services are less apt to vote for any policy that would jeopardize them.

snip ......

I'm going to stop you right there. Now you see that part of your statement I put in bold up there? That was in response to what I said which was ....

Originally Posted by OAW

Oh I understand his point quite well. A point that is rooted in the fundamental belief that minorities end up consuming more tax dollars than they pay ... so therefore they are a net drag on the entire system.

I never said that minorities don't "consume more in social services per capita". Minorities are disproportionately poor ... so naturally that would the case. No what I took issue with is this notion that Mr. Buchanan's implies ... which is that minorities consume more tax dollars than they pay. Because mathematically speaking ... if Group A pays $100K in taxes and consumes $30K in social services ... then Group a is not a "net drag on the entire system" because they are contributing more than they are utilizing. Even if Group B pays $100K in taxes but only consumes $20K ... Group A is still not using more than they paid in.

And then when one considers the actual percentage of government budgets that are spent on such programs .... well suffice it to say that Mr. Buchanan's motives become questionable.


OAW

PS: Remember when I said earlier that it would be one thing if the dog-whistle politics was a thing of the past? Well of course Rush just couldn't resist.

Rush Limbaugh Says First Lady Was Booed Partly Because NASCAR Fans Hate Her ‘Uppityism’

[lpkmckenna]

Everyone who defends Limbaugh as "just an entertainer" should be kicked the balls for being an idiot. That's like saying blackface minstrels are just entertainment.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Surely you're not saying I'm making this up? It was Reagan who introduced the term "welfare queen" into the political lexicon during the 1976 GOP Presidential Primary. It became a key component of his stump speeches during the 1976 and 1980 Presidential campaigns.

Welfare queen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or just google it and see for yourself that this is not a figment of my imagination.

Why so much focus on a term that can be construed in a distasteful manner while no focus is given the clear dialogue of an extremely tolerant man? And why so much focus on nuance and allegations when his predecessor has given much clearer fodder for charges of racial insensitivity? IMO, political expedience.

Well unfortunately these things don't always fit nice and neatly into a designated box my friend. Anything that deals with "race" at its core simply won't in the US since the last time I checked white people spanned the political spectrum. What I will say is that my historical and modern day observation has been that the further to the right one goes the more likely one is to see overt "racial animosity" directed towards minorities. Not to say you won't see it on the left. But let's be honest here .... are you more likely to see white nationalist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens at a Tea Party rally or at a OWS protest? I'm just saying ...

I disagree and believe the further left you get not only in the US, but abroad both historically and in modern times; the more intolerance you will find for ethnic diversity, gender, and religion. I also think the definitions for the two competing ideologies are woefully misrepresented in popular media rendering Hitler "right-wing" for example when nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect Hamas and/or Al Qaeda would be more likely at the OWS rallies, but I'm not willing to connect Dems or liberals with a "long and storied history of terrorism." Besides, I'm sure there's a logical fallacy for this position.

I'm not sure what you are getting at considering how white, Southern Democrats are virtually extinct now?
Politics in the South: The long goodbye | The Economist

That's because racial politics have taken a back seat to the economy and have for some time as I indicated earlier my friend. It doesn't surprise me you found this write-up in The Economist.

And what do I call the "long and storied past of the Democratic party" in the South? The Southern Democrats were the "pro-slavery" wing of the Democratic party. They opposed the more liberal Northern wing of the Democratic party. And they were most definitely on the other side of the fence of the anti-slavery GOP. The Southern Democrats seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. When the Confederacy was defeated in the Civil War ... southern white resentment toward the GOP (led by President Abraham Lincoln) ran deep during the Reconstruction era. The Southern Democrats were the party of "State's Rights" and would remain that way until the landmark Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s.
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Republicans were formed to combat slavery, but had always been for free market, free labor, and constitutionality. The fact of the matter is that much of what you're referring to as "conservative" ideology had been regarded common sense throughout the relatively young country leaving only a handful of truly contentious issues from which to divide the party ideologies including slavery. The country would begin a decided turn to the left in the 30's through a concerted effort to Europeanize our governance in response to the economy. At this time, the party differences began shifting away from mere secession from the Union and perpetuating slavery.

The bottom line here is that when it comes to the GOP ... the name may be the same but there is a vast difference between the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Reagan. The same can be said of the Democrats. The Democratic party of 2010 is very different than the Democratic party of 1910 ... especially in the South.

Yes, because of the ideological differences ushered in throughout the 30's.

Check out this voting map by county here for the 2008 Presidential Election.

Pay particular attention to the South. Anywhere outside of areas along the Texas border with Mexico with its predominantly Hispanic population and the major metropolitan areas of Dallas, Houston, Galveston, etc. .... and the majority African-American counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Georgia .... it's a sea of red and not just in the "burbs". Including those predominantly white and rural areas that are broker than the 10 Commandments.

I don't know why you'd point out the predominantly white areas as if your blue regions indicated in that map aren't decidedly void of minorities. Think about that for a minute. Urban flight... follow the dollar.

Let me put it to you like this. It's not about an ideological platform per se. It's about the historical record. If "Southern white conservatives" were pro-slavery, pro-Jim Crow, opposed to anti-lynching legislation, proponents of anti-miscegenation laws, opposed to the Civil Rights Movement, opposed to integration in public accommodations, opposed to integration in public schools, etc. ... then what difference does it make to the vast majority of African-Americans today what their political affiliation du jour is ... when the issue is the overall hostility this demographic has exhibited toward our people for centuries? Or minorities in general? In my grandfather's day this particular demographic aligned themselves with Democrats. In my day they align themselves with Republicans. But this is a distinction without a difference because it's the same ole sh*t warmed over ... just presented in a much more genteel fashion since overt displays of such attitudes are frowned upon in modern society. It would be one thing if the dog whistle politics were largely ineffective these days and were a thing of the past. Unfortunately, that's just not the way it is .

Well, none of the sea of red you're citing in the map above support slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, anti-miscegenation laws or oppose the Civil Rights movement, integration in public accommodations, integration in public schools, etc. so it would naturally make every difference in the world at this point with basic human rights out of the way to focus on the other aspects of a conservative platform such as a constitutionally limited government, free market, etc. I think you're conflating US Conservatism with the fanciful web definitions of it as I've already described before. Wanting to maintain the principles of the comparatively new system of government in the US is decidedly different than perpetuating human rights abuses under fascist or communist regimes and in fact, US conservatives are generally among the more hostile to those systems abroad.

Now let's put aside the fact that the Dems supported this legislation more than the GOP in terms of absolute and per capita votes. My point here is that this was a Northern vs. Southern issue. Not a single Southern Republican supported it. Just like the vast majority of Southern Democrats didn't support it. What do you see as the common denominator my friend?

Primarily? Today? The economy and urban flight. Historically you've always had greater racial tension in regions of greater diversity, but I don't think you can split this into "Conservative vs Liberal" as you have done. I maintain liberal ideology is destructive to the minority in this country. I believe at least a few of the blues get it.

I'm going to stop you right there. Now you see that part of your statement I put in bold up there? That was in response to what I said which was ....

I never said that minorities don't "consume more in social services per capita". Minorities are disproportionately poor ... so naturally that would the case. No what I took issue with is this notion that Mr. Buchanan's implies ... which is that minorities consume more tax dollars than they pay. Because mathematically speaking ... if Group A pays $100K in taxes and consumes $30K in social services ... then Group a is not a "net drag on the entire system" because they are contributing more than they are utilizing. Even if Group B pays $100K in taxes but only consumes $20K ... Group A is still not using more than they paid in.

You missed my point. California is a haven for illegal immigration. As the population of illegal immigrants increases, so does the burden on the State budget. As the State budget is burdened by more poverty, it is funded to an increasing degree by those who pay taxes. As those who pay taxes are expected to pay more in taxes, they are effectively chased out of the region. You are then left with more of those consuming benefits and less of those paying for them. Hence, an increasingly left-leaning dependency class, less fiscal discipline, and eventual bankruptcy.

And then when one considers the actual percentage of government budgets that are spent on such programs .... well suffice it to say that Mr. Buchanan's motives become questionable.

Too many people seek out motives instead of looking at facts. That's why Buchanan's motive is courageous conversation and something an elected official can't do and why we're in the state we're in as a country. No one can look at root cause anymore because it's motivated in an "attack on ______" with no regard for the factual data behind it.

I'll be out of town with limited connectivity so I gave this very little time. If it's still flaming when I get back, I'll take it up again. Later.

[The Final Dakar]

[OAW]

^^^^^^ Awesome!

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

[OAW]

Gloria Cain's absolutely priceless expression when asked if Herman Cain would be a good President:





OAW

[The Final Dakar]

"Mr. Cain, how many times did you engage sexual relations with this new woman that came forward?"
"999"

[The Final Dakar]

I suppose this thread is as dead as his campaign, eh?

[Jawbone54]

I got excited about Cain for two weeks.

I've been done as soon as the first round of allegations came out. You could sense the floodgates opening.

[OAW]

Yeah I think it's a wrap on Herman Cain. He just doesn't realize it yet. An interesting article that outlines just how many different people across the political spectrum all have to be lying in order for Cain to be telling the truth:

Herman Cain: Art of the possible - Jim VandeHei - POLITICO.com

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I got excited about Cain for two weeks.

I've been done as soon as the first round of allegations came out. You could sense the floodgates opening.

*Looks at the forum* Aren't you breaking a personal rule here? I'll do you a favor and not ask what I'm wondering right now.