Whatsa matta Coates Boss said he wuz justa jokin. And ou know weeze loves a good joke.

Seriously you have to embrace shit like this. It just keeps showing that the Rethugs got nothing. I personally hope they start back handing out the "Obama Bucks" whilst they are at it especially with Obama's approval numbers at 82 and still climbing.

Hope you had a wonderful Christmas

Of course the remaining 40% is too busy supporting torture to waste time being racist.

It has great lines such as:

All right, we'll give some land to the niggers and the chinks, but we DON'T WANT THE IRISH.

Hey, where the white women at?

Now if you will excuse me being of Irish descent I need to drink a wee bit more.

Rather than going for just a childish, rip-n-blather post, Ta-Nehisi Coates has upheld the Sully/MattY/McArdle/Ambinder tradition by actually trying to understand everything involved, including what the parody was referring to, an LAT guest editorial: peekURL.com/zmvbycg

But, that wasn't enough for Ta-Nehisi Coates! He speculated that the "Spanglish" bit might have something to do with this.

P.S. The Ta-Nehisi Coates described in this comment exists in the same universe as the intellectually honest Sully/MattY/McArdle/Ambinder do.

TR: From statements like this that assume entertainers and strategists are all the Republican Party is and from Republicans stupid enough to allow those two groups to set the image.

Party strategists are scum, that's what they're paid to be. Plenty of Democratic Party strategists will use xenophobia, religious intolerance, racism, or even homophobia to get what they want for their candidate. The Democratic Party is also a master at scare tactics from the Daisy-ad of LBJ, and probably before then, to today. You kind-of don't get to be the world's oldest political party without being able to be a ruthless survivor.

However the Democratic Party is better at knowing their strategists and most obnoxious agitators are not to be shown much in public. They're generally better at hiding rather than just lying outright. William Jefferson was embarrassing, but they stripped him of most committee positions and quietly waited things out. Republican crooks make a big spectacle of themselves or their innocence is defended in stupid ways. Then when things blow up the party thinks they'll get ethical brownie-points for dumping them. Or they think castigating racist members, like Tony Zirkle or maybe Trent Lott, will make them look less rather than more racist. When the smarter thing to do when you have racist members in your group is to keep them silent or pretend they don't exist.

The most racist people I know are Democrats, but Democrats are better liars and more skillfull evaders. Republicans right now suck at communication. All their base hatreds just come out rather than being masked the way a good Democrat would.

It's not surprising.

I'm waiting for Black Republicans to defend this clown.

Hows about some grass roots organization, fund raising and serious policy proposals? Wouldn't it be great if we actually had a hard working serious opposition party in this country?

Oh they have a grassroots organization....Its just being promoted by Sean Hannity and has an agenda of opposing Barack Obama first and foremost.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/obama-resistance-wingnuttery-never-s

I can guarantee you that this is the truth. Most of these hypocrites don't have the balls to admit it. And if you're honest with yourself, Ta-Nahesi, you'll agree with me. Post-racialist age, my ass. It's easy to point fingers at Saltzman. However, you are a damned fool if you think that racism is confined to the Republican Party. Indeed, the paradox is that Obama had to beat it back to win your party's nomination.

That's your problem. Asserting that All Republicans Are Racists is just dumb.

But back to someone who is part of my problem: Chip Saltzman, late of the McCain Campaign.

Look, all this did was to prove that Chip Saltzman is like most of the people at the RNC: ASSCLOWN.

I'm a Republican. I knew that already. You didn't need to tell me this.

They sort of proved that last fall, didn't they? Chip and the rest of these people were beaten like a drum by Obama's Campaign for a reason. These people couldn't hold on to North Carolina, for Christ's sake, so of course they're going to do stupid stuff like this that makes the Party look bad. What do you want the rest of us to do, wear a hairshirt? Thanks, but no thanks. Your party has the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. Why don't you grow up and act like a governing party now that you are a governing party and quit screaming "racism" everytime some Republican functionary takes a stupid pill?

The 99% of us Republicans who aren't racists get a little tired of having to assert, over and over again, that we don't get up in the morning thinking of ways to screw the Black Man.

Anyway, little stunts like this tend to disqualify people from the responsibility of running a national party during a rebuilding period.

All this does is get rid of another Romneybot, thank God. More room for Ken Blackwell or Mike Steele, both of whom are favored by the rank and file in the conservative movement. If you dropped by RedState now and again, you'd see that.

Lastly, I hope you're not planning on buying Cowboys playoff tickets.....

Where do you get off telling me I move to the other side of the street when I see Black men? I have lived and worked in majority Black neighborhood for half of my adult life.

I'm from New Mexico. I move to the other side of the street and have irrational fears of Hispanics, man.

The Republican Wheel o' Fail keeps on turning: Attack minorities, wonder why minorities stay away in droves. Attack minorities, wonder why minorities stay away in droves, &c, &c, &c.

And they aren't even smart enough to scream Jane! Stop this crazy thing! before they get sucked into the machinery.

Isn't it wonderful.

Um, i think we're saying "street cred" these days. You can thank me later.

That said what I said was actually intended as a criticism of Republicans too as they need criticism. Republicans have let the wingnuts and morons be their image. They should be working to make FoxNews the kind of place with classy and tolerant Republican, rather than loons and former criminals. If they can't control that channel they should try some other channel or create one.

And by saying Democrats are better liars I don't mean Republicans are more honest. Republicans just aren't good at knowing when to lie and how to do it well. At least since Reagan, Reagan was pretty good at selling really ridiculous lies. Since him Republicans have put out these people who are either clumsy at lying or lie about things with too great a risk of blowback.

And I think this is what Republicans miss on Reagan. I don't think people, granted mostly white people, liked Reagan because they believed in supply-side economics or SDI. They liked that he gave easy-to-understand answers and tried to make them feel good after a somewhat miserable decade. To an extent this means that they liked that he could lie in ways they found pleasant and that blamed others rather than themselves.

Um, party strategists are supposed to be nasty & racist during a campaign--not just as a matter of course. It's bad enough when you're racist and nasty during a campaign, but politics ain't beanbag. But to be that way months afterward means you're just a nasty, racist person. And Saltman isn't just a strategist---he's running to be RNC chair of party that is attracting record lows of minority support in a country where the minority will so comprise most of the electorate. He--and his party--have got to do better than this.

We all know that there are racists among both Democrats and Republicans, as well as those whose bias is less overt. Republican voters themselves, to their credit, have recently shown themselves perfectly willing to vote for non-whites who espouse the party platform, like Bobby Jindal or J.C Watts, and the appointments of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell were by-and-large supported by GOP voters.

But Republican operatives often actively stoke racism as an electoral strategy, and more insidiously, they are ridiculously tone deaf to racial bias even when they're not trying to be. The problem with the Rush Limbaugh song is not that it satirizes a problematic attitude toward Barack Obama that some white liberals undoubtedly have. After all, David Ehrenstein wrote that column for a reason. The problem is that the satire took the form of what is essentially a contemporary blackface routine.

As long as the Republican Party leadership thinks that calling out egregious stereotypes of African-Americans or the habit of equating "illegal" and "Hispanic" is just "political correctness," they will utterly fail to get minority votes. It loses them far more of these votes than it gains them among "anti-PC" whites or whatever you want to call the the Limbaugh demographic.

You would think that self-preservation would get them to change their behavior, and it may yet. But their current strategy, while it may have worked once, and may still work in Mississippi or Alabama, isn't going to work in the nation at large any longer. Non-white populations are just too large and white populations are just not racist enough. They need a new approach, and stat. Sadly for them, because of all the rhetoric they've deployed up to now, I think it will probably take a while to turn that ship around. After all, what will the Republican party be without Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvXz2xaLNMQ

As opposed to holding the Presidency and both Houses of Congress AND the Supreme Court for YEARS, and yet screaming that actually the most powerful entities in the country are Hollywood and the Liberal Media who really "control everything"?

Well, it's after Christmas now. If I don't see the price slashed by at least 30%, I'm walking.

The funny thing to me is that while the so called "rank and file" always want to make a fuss about not being called racists they continue on a pretty regular basis to elect, promote, and hire people with the most racist rhetoric permittable in polite society these days. The running meme by the so called conservatives in Congress is that poor minorities are to blame for all of the country's economic woes. We just went through a presidential campaign season where all of the conservative "thinkers" smeared Barack Obama and his wife with racist rhetoric. But woe is you because you are branded racists.

Well hey there is a simple fix to that problem, leave the party. Because one thing I can pretty much guaran damn tee you right now and that is that the Republican party is about to double down on their southern strategy not run from it. Notice that Chip Saltzman didnt just share that bullshit cd with his personal friends and family members. He sent it out to ALL of the RNC committee members. Did you hear anything about any of them sending it back? Have you heard your token niggras Steele or Blackwell denounce his actions? Of course not. So you can get just as used to being called racist scumbags as liberals had to get used to being called dirty hippies. It is what it is.

TR: Agreed. I remember cringing when the talking heads on FoxNews shrieked with horror about "Mexican flags being waved in our country!", blech. And unfortunately much of the National Review as well as several in Congress acted the same.

"If Repubicans don't want to be seen as racist, then they need to start (without prompting) unequivocally denouncing this shit when it happens." Triumvere

TR: Umm no. Republicans can denounce racist Republicans before anyone does, but all this does is shine a light on racism among Republicans. It might not be as moral, but it's probably more effective to just shun racist Republicans and avoid placing them in any position of power.

And to be honest I think mostly Republicans don't feel the urge to say "we're not all racist." Most of them think the idea "we're all racist" is just a lot of noise Democrats put out to scare the minority vote or feel good about themselves. I'd say maybe 15-25% actually are racist so just don't care much. (Estimates of white Democrats I believe show a 15-25% racist range. McCain did quite well in the "Clinton states" of Arkansas, Louisiana, and West Virginia)

The "we're not all racist" thing comes from the few Republicans who associate with people who say the GOP is racist. Maybe it's not the best response. However just saying "you have no idea what you're talking about" sounds/feels way too dismissive. And it also elides some facts.

Because on some level the GOP is racist or uses racism to its advantage. It's just that on some level all political parties are like that. If the Republicans run Jindal next election I'm sure Biden will be out there to make 7-11 jokes about Indian-Americans or if not him someone else. I'm not saying the bigotries are one-to-one identical, but both parties are bigoted. It just depends on what kind of bigotry you like.

Although Democrats will use outright racism, I'm willing to concede that in public they kind-of prefer using xenophobia or religious bigotries. Whether NAFTA is good or bad for us it's bad because it allegedly sends our jobs to them dirty Mexicans. African Anglicans are bad because they don't approve of homosexuality the way enlightened American Episcopalians do. Mormons are scum and Cynthia McKinney lost because of the Jews, but you know we're not bigoted.

How, exactly, does one perform the "quiet shunning/sweep under the rug maneuver once the cat is out of the bag? The "Barack the Magic Negro" story is on the front page of the CNN website right now. No, if they attempt to write it off now they just look racist. Your idea, while good politics, can only be put into play before the shit hits the fan, not after.

Frankly at present neither are really that practical given current internal politics of the GOP. The old guys at the top are part of the problem, and you're going to need a generational shift before anything can be done.

Smallest. Violin. Ever.

It's doable in theory at least. You make Limbaugh unofficially verboten at any Republican gathering. You vet people's background better before selecting them for any position of authority. The *liberal media will still associate you with those people, but I think you can diminish the damage on that among moderates.

In practice the Republicans haven't done that too much because of fear of losing too much. At this point though that's likely to lessen. Even if the Republicans had won Virginia, North Carolina, Indiana, and Florida they still would've lost by 60 electoral votes. No matter how much one dislikes Republicans they are capable of counting and they're not actually retarded.

To be honest the Bush years themselves I think mostly represent a repudiation of old biases in favor of new ones. Like disdain for gays and Muslims. The people like Limbaugh or Hannity were really off-message and hurt McCain. Both McCain and Bush supported immigration reform and aid to Africa. I expect the trend to "homophobia and Islamophobia instead" to continue apace regardless of wingnuts, although Muslims might be switched to atheists in time. And meanwhile Democrats will focus their bigotries on fears of "Christianists" and other phantoms.

The parties suck. I vote Republican because my experience of Democrats is they suck just a little more.

*By that I mean the media that is self-avowedly liberal. There is also the "conservative media" like the Wall Street Journal or FoxNews or the National Review.

The 99% of us Republicans who aren't racists get a little tired of having to assert, over and over again, that we don't get up in the morning thinking of ways to screw the Black Man.

wow, and when shit like this is pulled...i hear diddly squat from apparently "non-racist" republicans. So the party is 1% racist and 99% chickenshit? But to be frank, u dont have to assert anything to me, u need to adress the party...not me...im not the one who's loosing. And it makes u look like an apologist.

"Permanent
Republican
Majority"

/falls off chair laughing

I don't agree with you. But as always, I appreciate you coming in here and fighting the fight. The good fight, even. I salute you, sir.

The people like Limbaugh or Hannity were really off-message and hurt McCain. Both McCain and Bush supported immigration reform and aid to Africa.

Here is the problem of the party you vote for. Limbaugh and Hannity ARE the Republican Party. You talk about McCain and Bush supporting immigration reform but you leave out that McCain ran from HIS OWN DAMN IMMIGRATION BILL. Thats the sway white racist rich guys have in the party you vote for. I am tempted to do a Chris Matthews on you and accuse you of trying to take off your uniform but I will give you the benefit of the doubt here. Ill take you at your word that you aren't a card carrying Republican but you are missing the point. To many of the faces of the party you vote for come off as racist xenophobes. Whether you believe down deep somewhere in your heart that Democrats are more racist is totally irrelevant because you don't see those Democrats in the news for sending out Obama bucks or sending out a Barack the Magic Negro CD to all their friends. So if you want to draw your false equivalences between the two parties thats fine. But I will ask you the same question I ask of the black republicans I run into every now and then. Name me a Democrat who on a regular basis pushes racist memes in public. Until you can name someone with a D behind their name that comes off even remotely like the highly rated republicans Limbaugh or Hannity then nobody will buy your "Republicans aren't racists" rhetoric.

Let me give your the perspective of an "Obama Republican" in the battleground state of Ohio. Ohio has always been an interesting "test market" because of its demographics and diversity: we have significant Hispanic populations, Appalachia, industrial inner cities, a "college town" in just about every county, active (but Orthodox/secular split) Jewish populations, Old World Catholics and gay-friendly cities and suburbs. And, oddly, even the shape of the state looks like a miniature United States . . . seriously, look at it.

The GOP really started to die in Ohio in 2004. Why? Absolute control led to corruption. Sound familiar? In 2006, the Dems ran a moderate pro-gun Methodist minister. And you know what the GOPs response was? They called out him and his wife of 25 years as fags because they did not have any kids! Surprise surprise, the Dem won with an overwhelming margin because the moderate GOPers could not stomach being associated with "change the subject" fag bashing ESPECIALLY when the party doing it was having problems answering for its own corruption.

If the national GOP had been watching, they would have started trying to appeal to the middle way before this presidential election cycle began. But the only lesson they learned was that they had to be even MORE right wing and MORE offensive. Hence the "terrorist" b.s. against a Harvard educated law professor with the highest security clearance possible. Or decrying him being a "community organizer" and sorta forgetting the intervening years as a major state legislator . . . as if that meant nothing. Or calling him a Muslim when he has written two different books discussing his Christian faith, given speeches about it, and worked with conservative pastor Rick Warren on issues important to both of them. How do you think THAT all played with college educated moderates? Once again, the GOP lost its own credibility by creating b.s. talking points against a candidate, as opposed to offering actual alternatives to policy.

So now that you cons have to deal with what is increasingly becoming a regional party with a Southern, anti-science, crypto-racist core, you cannot get away with changing the sibject.

I leave you with this: a few years ago, I was at Thanksgiving dinner talking politics with a guest, who happens to be a Black professional (can't remember what he did). I tried to explain to him that, from an econmic perspective, the GOP was more aligned with his interests. But I also explained that the reason he and other minorities do not vote GOPer is because of the Trent Lotts who control the party. And you know what happened about two weeks later? Trent Lott's comments at racist rapist Strom Thurmond's birthday party! That was later followed by "macaca" (which the conservatives tried to laugh off), then the anti-immigrant, andti-Spanish language commentary aimed at Hispanics. How many minority votes has the GOP lost since then? How many Chinese Americans heard the macaca comment and asked "I wonder what they say about me when I leave the room?"? How many East Asians heard the sneering comments about "diversity" (alsmost spat out of right wing mouths) and wondered what the right thought about the Indian food aisle at the grocery store? How many Blacks heard the comments about all Muslims being "dangerous" and thought "gee, that sounds familiar"? And how many average White Americans looked at the ignorant rable videoed at Palin rallies and simply did not want to be associated with White trash?

THAT, my friend, is why the GOP is staring at the demographic abyss. And if Obama proves to be a competent president? It might be over for the Grand Old Party.

> Subject: FW: On The John Langston Forum: RNC Chair Candidate (Chip Saltzman's packages to RNC members on 'Barack the Magic Negro'
> Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:02:10 -0500
>
> Food for thoughts!
>

>
> "I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence." Fredrick Douglass

I have to agree with Section9. Although incidents like these certainly don't help Republicans in their "reaching out" efforts (if there are any) I think that as of 2009, people should retire the "GOP is racist" meme. Sorry, it just doesn't hold water after this election season. Both parties have problems with minorities--Dem leaders illustrated their racist paternalism with *some* of their opposition to Obama's candidacy and the arguments in support of their beliefs, and some Repub leaders illustrated their xenophobia and racism with their comments against Obama's candidacy as well. So unless we are ready to paint both parties with the same broad brush, I think it is unfair to let these types of events represent the whole GOP.

Get real! What you are saying is analogous to saying "both parties are bleeding." One has a puncture wound in the throat and the other hasm an injury more akin to a 2 inch slash across the palm. Both are wounds, both are bleeding, and both hurt. But ONE IS MORE SERIOUS, medically speaking, than the other.

Likewise, some Dems made ignorant comments while a Black candidate rolled up 19 million primary votes, raised more money than any political candidate in US history (if not the world's history?), and Rick Rolled nine Bush states (NM, Nev., Ind., Colorado, Ohio, Va., NC, Iowa, and Florida) [and nearly Missouri, too] into the "Blue" column. The "other" party drew less than 10% of Black voters, less than a third of the Hispanics and about the same percentage of all Asian voters.

One party ran a minority with a half-Kenyan man with a Muslim middle name for president and won, while the other had people seriously challenging it's candidate's bona fides because he had a "pro-amnesty" Hispanic advisor (which, of course, would probably describe about 90% of Hispanic voters . . . but I digress).

Both parties have racists in them, but WHICH PARTY HAS THE BIGGER PROBLEM WITH THE FAST GHORWING MINORITY VOTING POPULATION? Do we really need to ask that question? No. And I don't think we have to ask "why" either. Just ask Chip Saltsman!

The presidential campaign led him to vote for Obama. McCain/Palin tactics insulted his intelligence. The larger party come across as a bunch of angry bigots behind a thin mask of courtesy, not the party of family values and streamlined government.

The GOP's saving grace is that America is a fairly conservative nation, and many of the people who would vote for Obama in 2012 might not vote for a McGovern equivalent. There's also the demographic factor -- white social conservatives have more children than white secular-libs. For that matter highly educated people are having fewer children than people who are outright suspicious of education.

Frankly given that the GOP has become the party of torture, rendition, anti-habeas corpus, pro-imperialism, anti-science, pro-bigotry, pro-nepotism, and ... anti-personal responsibility (how many people were fired for 9/11 or the Iraqi intelligence again?), there is no way that McCain should have won 46% of the popular vote. What more did Bush/Cheney have to do to outrage our nation, nuke Canada? Sacrifice kittens above a blood-soaked altar on the White House lawn?

So while Hannity and Co. are down they are still not out. They are going to keep stirring the pot of mistrust and fear because when people feel secure and tolerant they will be out of a job.

@section9:
If the DNC came out with "Jindal-bucks" decorated with turbans and curry powder, or made a satirical song about Palin being a white trash meth-addicted baby-maker, you can bet there would be blow-back from Democrats across the nation. But at this point the non-racist Republicans are unwilling to castigate their bigoted colleagues.

You're quite a piece of work claiming that all liberals are racist suck-ups who are just too cowardly be honest, and THEN claim that 99% of Republicans are not racist. Big fan of Sean Hannity, huh?

Sure thing, Tommy. That's why you're a Republican - you prefer honest genocide to "hidden prejudice."

Tell me again how Saint Reagan was no bigot and how the Southern Strategy that your party has followed for 40 years makes it non-racist. I just love it when you do comedy.

The most racist people I know swallow the Repiglican law'n'order and all-Muslims-must-die Limbaugh/Coulter/Hannity bullshit completely. That's your party, Tommy. That's your party. Why can't you see that?

Cynthia McKinney lost in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY to a black opponent who is a BUDDHIST, Tommy. Now you're just making shit up.

I realize these are desperate times for Republicans, but please stop the nonsense. You'll soon be reduced to standing on street corners yapping about Robert Byrd being a Klan member.

Do you think a McCain/Palin inagural would include a liberal leaning pastor who agrees with them, for example, on school vouchers, to give an invocation? No, it would never happen. Because the ever-shrinking right wing of America is convinced that THEY are the only "real Americans" ; a liberal minister is simply not a Christian in their view, so he/she would not count and would not be invited. But as Colin Powell noted, if northern Virginia is not "real Virginia", what does that mean when there are more people up there than in the rest of the state? Likewise, if rural America is "real America", how do you deal with the fact that the vast majority of Americans live in cities and suburbs of cities?

The right wing is self-defining the GOP out of existence. If this keeps up, the GOP will serve a role on ballots in the North, Atlantic region, Great Lakes and the West not dissimilar to the Constitution Party or the Natural Law Party. Luckily, there are GOPers -- like Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, Ken "do not ask and I won't tell" Mellman and even Rick Warren -- who see where that is going. But the Chip Saltsmans, Sarah Palins and Sean Hannitys of the world appear to serve the same role as Raul Castro in Cuba -- denying reality in support of the ideology of an increasingly disfunctional status quo.

Enjoy your thirty years in the wilderness, GOP.

Hagel and Powell are now persona non grata in the Repiglican Party, of course. The Palins and Limbaughs are totally in control. It's possible that a few more 2006/2008 style electoral asskickings would bring the moderates back in control, but that's unlikely in the current environment of economic hard times. I think the GOP will be measurably crazier in 2010 than it is now - and I think right now it is a party that's composed almost entirely of fringe lunatics, at least among the activists.

So what they have is a party of wackjobs supported by greedheads who care mostly about low taxes. Is there a significant minority in the GOP that cares more for the general welfare of the country than they do about their own pocketbooks or their bizarre religious fetishes (i.e. gaybashing, fetus-worship, and so on)? If so, where are they, and why do they have so little influence on their party?

That's not, completely, the racism you're referencing though (and I recognize this was a kind of facetious, facile post that doesn't represent your intellectually honest feelings), and I think, as some people above have mentioned, that much of the Republican Party's problem is that they don't understand racism in the manner you (and much of the electorate) do.

It's a matter of language and historical context that I think has been pointed out in some comments above, but I thought I'd do it more explicitly.

Thanks, Chris! You go, bubba!

A (very much former) Republican...

My family is urban; Puerto Ricans and Blacks, generally more concerned with American Idol than being offended by Republicans. What they pick up on are the images like those from the racially mixed DNC and lily white RNC conventions, or a bunch of old white males lined up on stage at the Republican primary debates. In my opinion, most minorities aren't interested in being the lone representative in a sea of whiteness. It is this simple: if the club doesn't have members that look like me - then I am not welcome.

TR: You really aren't aware of her supporters alleging that she lost because of outside Jewish money? You've honestly never...of course you've never heard that. I forgot who I was talking to I guess.

If you missed the news the chairman of the RNC is, unwisely I'd guess, already denouncing this guy and the song.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gdJx1CceOBh-iERx-3TL1pXDri3wD95B972G0

"The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party," RNC Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan said in a statement. "I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."

Will this mean anything to anyone? No, because Republicans are already defined as racists for some. Stating they need to "reach out" or "move" just confirms they are racist or allows that to be implied.

As to specifics on Democrats Fred Phelps whose son served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. John Malcolm Patterson, the Klan-supported guy who defeated George Wallace for governor, is still alive and Democratic. He does judicial work for the Party. Super-liberal Pete Stark described a black politicians as a "shame to his race", or something similar, because he was Republican. (Possibly that won't be seen as counting, but I think an elderly white-guy saying that is a bit obnoxious as did people at the time) Hillary Clinton certainly used portrayals of Obama as foreign and "not like us" with help of Mark Penn. Hostile statements about Italians and Jews have been made by several in the party. As mentioned McKinney supporters on Jews, but also several who allege various Italian-American politicians are "mafiosos" or "Fascists." And of course Robert Byrd's "white niggers" remark, which was not made in some bygone youth but in the 1990s. This is mostly going by memory I can look for more if necessary.

Granted though Democratic Party politicians usually focus bigotries more against religions and cultures than races or ethnicities. Like Ted Kennedy saying you can't trust a Mormon because they're a racist church or all the varied scare tactics against denominations they dislike.

Admittedly they're unwaivering support of exemptions so women can abort people like me no matter how late in the pregnancy does possibly cloud my judgment on them. The party that says "you really shouldn't have been born and your failure to euthanize yourself amuses us" is not exactly something I can support. Republicans are ultra-nationalist and callously support inhumane regimes so long as they are pro-American so I'm not a good match with them either. Still people like Bob Dole were literally with me and my family where I doubt many Democrats would give a Pro-Life Catholic family of six the time of day.

This is the only plausible explanation. For most of us, singing a song calling someone a "Magic Negro" will only result in a reaction of, "Wow! That is really racist!" But apparently in Republican circles, saying such things isn't considered "racist," which is limited, I suppose, to refusing to hire a black person.

Seriously, I would have been punished by my parents for running around singing a song like that. How the heck were Republicans raised that this sort of thing is considered normal, mainstream behavior? I think they were never taught that not being racist doesn't mean merely, "not economically and politically strangling a person" but also "not speaking and acting in a racially offensive manner." Not all parents are ever assured of well-behaved children, but good parents will openly condemn and punish acts of misbehavior. The Republican party can't be expected to have all their voters resist being racists, but the fact that mainstream members of the Republican party openly and proudly write these songs, broadcast them, and distribute them on CD without even the expectation of consequence means that the people at the top don't understand what appropriate behavior is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/26/rnc-candidate-distributes_n_153585.html

Unfortunately, there is hypersensitivity in the press regarding matters of race. "I don't think any of the concerns that have been expressed in the media about any of the other candidates for RNC chairman should disqualify them. When looked at in the proper context, these concerns are minimal. All of my competitors for this leadership post are fine people."

Boss an nem shoh iz fine peoples.

Harpin Bob Ass Nigga

You are fighting a war armed only with a peashooter . . . .

"You really aren't aware of her supporters alleging that she lost because of outside Jewish money?"

Two main points here: one, her "supporters" apparently did not outnumber her detractors, did they? And she lost in the Dem. primary, which means -- who gives a sh*t what her supporters thought? Because obviously, the majority of Dems in that district did not support that theory any more than they supported her!

You can also mention any number of random people and call them Dems and say they are racists. It doesn't matter because no matter how many racist Dems you list, the facts remain that, by overwhelming margins, the Blacks, Asians, South Asians, and Hispanics in this country would RATHER VOTE WITH THE DEMS, who have those supposed racists in their party, than vote with the GOP!

I know, I know . . . when you ask White GOPers [isn't that redundant?] why minorities would rather have the clap than vote GOPer, the typical GOPer will come up with a basket of silly explanations: Dem promise Blacks and Hispanics more welfare, yada yada yada. And I bet you people even believe that, too! But you never look inward, do you? You never ask what the GOP is doing that, in essence, so offends minorities that they would rather get hit by a bus that cast their lot with the likes of Jeff Sessions.

The rest of your post is all over the place. "White niggers"? Claiming the Dems are anti-Mormon or anti-Catholic when the heads of the two legislative houses are a Mormon and a Catholic? And on the pro-choice issue, sorry to alert you but MOST OF AMERICA is pro-choice on some level.

You might feel personally alienated from the Dem Party. Fine. The problem is that a vastly larger percentage of Americans are alienated from the GOP. The GOP is become an old, White party in a time when the country is getting less old and less white. The GOP tries to stand up against multiculturalism when the country is empbracing it. The GOP is fighting against gays marrying when the country is turning the exact opposite direction. The GOP, in short, has some serious problems as far as long term relevance is concerned. And you listing three or four offensive things that Dems supposedly may have done doesn't change a thing.

Think about that for a minute. Chip thought the song was fine and he thought it would help him win. He used the song even though two Black men were running for the same position. Why did Chip do this? Because among the people HE THINKS ARE SELECTING THE GOP LEADERSHIP, he thinks they would dig that tune!

Now this is the real question for the GOP leadership to ask themselves: is Chip right?

My guess is that Chip was right on the money. Because the GOP is so insular, so self-focused, so assured that it represents "real America" -- it does not even know that the majority of America wants nothing to do with the party! I mean, seriously, people! They still think chosing Sarah Palin was a GOOD idea!

As to specifics on Democrats Fred Phelps whose son served as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. John Malcolm Patterson, the Klan-supported guy who defeated George Wallace for governor, is still alive and Democratic. He does judicial work for the Party. Super-liberal Pete Stark described a black politicians as a "shame to his race", or something similar, because he was Republican. (Possibly that won't be seen as counting, but I think an elderly white-guy saying that is a bit obnoxious as did people at the time) Hillary Clinton certainly used portrayals of Obama as foreign and "not like us" with help of Mark Penn. Hostile statements about Italians and Jews have been made by several in the party. As mentioned McKinney supporters on Jews, but also several who allege various Italian-American politicians are "mafiosos" or "Fascists." And of course Robert Byrd's "white niggers" remark, which was not made in some bygone youth but in the 1990s. This is mostly going by memory I can look for more if necessary.

So to recap you named

1. A guy whose son was a delegate to the DNC which I guess is his claim to fame

2. Another guy who isn't in politics anymore and is probably some where on life support

3. Another guy whose claim to fame was telling a black Republican he was a shame to his race. Wow such racist rhetoric

4. Hillary Clinton and Mark Penn based on them trying to win the primary. Funny about that though, Penn came up with the strategy but they hardly ever used it. Of course Republican nominees John McCain and Caribou Barbie had no such qualms

So thats the sum total of your false equivalence with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Chip Saltzman, Karl Rove, Steve Schmidt, Michele Bachman, Jim Quinn, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, Bill Cunningham, G. Gordon Liddy, Tom Delay, Ann Coulter....

Ok I will take a breath and just stop there. Is that really the best you could come up with? Stop while you are already behind for crying out loud.

EPIC FAIL.

TR: You really aren't aware of her supporters alleging that she lost because of outside Jewish money? You've honestly never...of course you've never heard that. I forgot who I was talking to I guess. "

No, I'm not aware of any such thing - if it's true it seems like a totally meaningless whine by a small sliver of her supporters. That's as opposed to the very real institutional use of blatant racism by the leading lights of the Republican Party over the past 40+ years that you don't give a rat's ass about. You think a few crackpot supporters of one fringe Democrat who lost a primary matches up to the overt racism of Nixon and Reagan and Helms and Atwater and Rove and so on and on? Seriously?

Of course you do. I forgot who I was talking to. You're See-No-GOP-Evil, Hear-No-GOP-Evil Tommy R!

Keep on wallowing in your pigsty of bigotry, Tommy. I guess it doesn't count if your eyes are closed. How did it feel voting for Sarah Palin, anyway?

PS - Every single person I have heard say that blacks should be grateful their ancestors were taken to this country as slaves is a Republican! How about that, Tommy? Quite a coincidence, huh? And boy, if only blacks were as smart as you are, they'd vote Republican,

After she lost her congressional re-election bid, she had a concession event where New Black Panthers ran security. Some of them were shouting anti-semitic stuff at reporters, calling her opponent an uncle tom, etc. I don't really give a damn - there was nothing to suggest that she held those views, and people get unreasonably heated after emotional losses. But folks here were outraged - outraged! - when some dude at a McCain/Palin rally shouted "terrorist" in reference to Obama, so maybe they'll care more than I do.

I'd search for the video, but it would probably lead to a FOX News clip hosted on free republic or some other wingnut site, and that would just be depressing.

The tactic of equating Obama with Muslims and terrorists was constant and deliberately pursued by Repiglican mouthpieces Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc. ad nauseam during the campaign. This met with only the most tepid and smirking "denunciation" from the McCain/Palin campaign itself. To say it was just "some dude" at "a rally" is once again typical of Republican lies and/or denial of reality.

Deny it all you want, chuckles, but your party is the safe haven - maybe the last safe haven - for the worst, most ignorant form of racism this country has ever produced. That's why your candidates crawl on their bellies to give speeches at Bob Jones University, and it's why your candidates have the Confederate battle flag tattooed on their asses. Deal with it.

"Another candidate to lead the GOP, South Carolina party chair Katon Dawson, drew headlines this fall by resigning his membership of 12 years in a whites-only country club, weeks before launching his run at the national job."

I love it.

Amazing that just a few years ago it was taken as a given that Republicans were better at winning elections.

Now they've just lost an election to a black man, and this is the way they go about rebuilding their party?

Two of the other candidates for RNC chairmanship are Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell, both of whom are black.

As a Marylander, I can attest that Steele is a nitwit. I don't know anything about Blackwell. But the name! Could they possibly be more subtle? I can imagine it now! "Meet our new token black, Mr. Blackwell."

TR: I think there's some truth to this although probably not in the way you mean. I think most Republicans know that that song is racist or racially insensitive. However some Republicans don't get context on racial issues on other matters. Some things a white person can say about a white person are not acceptable for a white person to say about a black person or a black community.

I can say that my mostly white town is too white and full of drunks. A black person could say something similar of a mostly black town, although drunkeness is less common among blacks. (Which itself might be an insensitive thing to say even though it's supported by crime statistics and studies) However white Republicans tend to think that means they can say a community is too black and full of crime. They can't or more accurately they really shouldn't. Or they just assume because they treat people fine regardless of race every white person does and therefore racism no longer exists. So they'll say blacks are in prison more because they commit more crimes without realizing there's more to it than that.

Many white Republicans are racially naive and ignorant about racism. The effort at educating them I take it is "I hate your party, you should be replaced" which is both unhelpful and wildly unrealistic.

"It doesn't matter because no matter how many racist Dems you list, the facts remain that, by overwhelming margins, the Blacks, Asians, South Asians, and Hispanics in this country would RATHER VOTE WITH THE DEMS, who have those supposed racists in their party, than vote with the GOP!" B-Rob

TR: It is, or appears to be, in their economic interest to do so. And I don't mean "welfare." The Democratic Party has more to say on affordable healthcare and middle-class tax cuts. (Although "Asians" and "Hispanics" are diverse groups. Cubans, Vietnamese, and a few others are generally Republican) The Republican Party has been stupid by having nothing useful or pleasing to say to the working poor for sometime now.

Specific to the black issue, as richer blacks also vote Democratic which is somewhat different than most other non-white groups, is Goldwater and Reagan. By supporting states rights in provocative ways they did alienate a generation of black voters and a certain inertia was maintained by that.

"Penn came up with the strategy but they hardly ever used it." sgw

I believe that you believe that. I believe that you believe that stuff during the primary had nothing to do with Hillary or Democrats. Those pictures of him that tried to make him look all foreign during the Democratic primary period were obviously by McCain after all. That old rascal. Hillary wouldn't have said things like "He's not a Muslim so far as I know" or tried to link him to radicals. Other Democrats running against Obama wouldn't have implied a black man as a President is a fairytale or what have you. Oh my no.

Blackwell is a CORRUPT nitwit.

As for blacks in the Republican Party, I think a scene in the movie "Bob Roberts" summed it up best. A black member of Roberts' team is sitting in the midst of a campaign gathering as some Coulter-type is saying that a black woman she knows "doesn't even like fried chicken" and the entire assemblage gets the giggles - except for the black guy, who just looks away and looks uncomfortable. But of course he doesn't say anything. How could he?

When you lay down with pigs you have to put up with the oinking, I guess.

When you're done sanitizing what racists say and do could you turn out the lights, Tommy? Don't worry, the smell will still be there, even in the dark.

I mean, sheesh. You make it sound like Republicans are expressing themselves delicately and naively, like 4 year old kids or something. That's not the world we live in, pal. The race-baiting the GOP has been engaged in for the past 40+ years isn't an accident born of ignorance, it has been a DELIBERATE POLICY born of expedience and cynicism.

You know that and I know it, so stop making excuses. Man up already. You're making me pity you with this namby-pamby bullshit.

The thing you seem to be missing is that Mark Penn's strategy DIDN'T WORK. Obama won the primary, remember? The xenophobic wing of the Republican party, in contrast, forced McCain to retreat from HIS OWN BILL. That is, the racist Democrats lost, while the racist Republicans won.

You know what, on second thought you are right. NOTHING is wrong with the Republican party. You guys aren't racist or anything. As a matter of fact I think you should continue doing every thing EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as you always have. No wait what I meant to say is whatever you guys have done in the past do MORE of it. That way I am SURE that you Republicans will rise again in a couple of years or 4 or maybe 100. Just keep doing what you do man, it will all work itself out.

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I think we members of the reality-based community can count on exactly that happening for at least the next decade or so. Party affiliation isn't fluid enough to allow for quick change, and not enough of the Limbaugh/Dumbya Repiglicans will have died off to make the change happen any quicker. (Repiglicans like to pretend that "Reagan Democrats" are still a viable, important demographic, but they aren't.)

The intellectual dishonesty/timidity of the Tommy R's of the party won't help revivify the GOP. The genuine thinkers among conservatives almost all abandoned McCain this year, and rightly so.

The GOP needs the world's first heart/brain transplant in order to survive - unless Obama totally fails, in which case we'll end up being led by the dumbass fascist Jesoids in the Palin branch of the GOP. If that happens America is over and out.

Good luck to President Obama - he'll need all of it he can get in cleaning up after the scumbags of the past 8 years.

TR: Provocative as in meaning to provoke people. Very well though they handled it in a way intended to play on the desires of racists and segregationists. Better?

"That is, the racist Democrats lost, while the racist Republicans won." Katherine

TR: How do you figure that? Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo were the real anti-immigration/race-baiting hawks. And besides that the Republicans clearly were losers this election.

The idea here seems to be that not only are Republicans racist, but they are also stupid in a way beyond all reason. Even if they were totally stuck on a "Southern strategy" this election would shows that doesn't work. Their big Southern victory was a Vietnamese guy no one ever heard of, except for a few Pro-Life Catholics like me.

"You know what, on second thought you are right. NOTHING is wrong with the Republican party." SGW

TR: This is clearly not what I'm saying. I'm saying a demonization of them as racist jerks is unfair and also not useful for democracy. Someday Republicans are going to be in power again, it's inevitable in a two-party system. So when that happens you can look like the equivalent of Falwell and his "Clinton Chronicles" watchers or you can find a mature way to deal with opposition in a free society. It's your choice.

1: I don't think this is what the Democratic party's intent and it's an implication of their ideology many are likely not even aware *of.

2: Most of the thread is Republican bashing so I was just adding some trash to the other side to even it out.

3: I sometimes fail in my own goals. It's embarrassing, but I can't deny it.

4: The statement is conditional. I'm willing to vote for a Pro-Life Democrat who isn't overly beholden to law firms and unions. I would not expect them to leave the party. The general view here is a Republican who is for Affirmative Action, Earned Income Tax Credits, high minimum wage, and against the oil industry would still be repellent just by being Republican. Or alternatively that such a person should leave the party.

*It has pretty much only been liberals who say I should've never been born or should be forcibly sterilized, but most people don't take a mindset to its most extreme conclusion like that. If they did conservatives would be about revoking the Amendment that allows direct election of Senators or the one about the income tax.

No, Tommy, you have a choice as well. You can continue to support the racist GOP because they indulge your fetus fetish - even though they really have just been giving it lip service - and that clearly is what you have decided to do. You don't give a ripe fucking damn if they blow up thousands of Iraqi babies or pregnant Iraqi women or if they torture people as long as they make you feel cozy by pretending to worship the fetus the way you do. One American fetus is worth uncounted numbers of Iraqi children in your eyes - after all, those Iraqi kids would just be hellbound Muslims. Why waste any tears on them?

That's your version of "maturity." You're welcome to it. Crazy old LIBERAL me, I see more tragedy in one Iraqi kid getting his body blown to bits as he's riding his bike than I do in 1000 6 week old fetuses being vacuumed out, but what do I know? I just don't share your oogity-boogity beliefs about souls and such. I think real human beings with hopes and dreams matter more than potential Jesus-bait. And you don't.

So you vote for genocidal assholes like Bush and you think you're doing GAWD'S work. Like I said before, I pity you.

It's not a "demonization" if they are in fact racist jerks. And we have the admissions on record of both Lee Atwater and Ken Mehlman to support the rational observation that the GOP has been the racist jerk party during my entire lifetime.

Why should anyone accept your contrary opinion over theirs, Tommy? Really, why? Your cowardly avoidance of the question is beneath... well, it's beneath anyone other than a Republican. Nothing seems to be beneath a Republican.

The typical Republican is a racist jerk because RACIST JERKS have been the party's TARGET AUDIENCE throughout modern history. This is no longer in doubt. It's also why the party is dying, because RACIST JERKS are an endangered species. Finally.

At least I hope so. The only people who hope otherwise love Sarah Palin.

McCain embraced that crazy woman at the DNC yelling about that "inadequate black man", and who claimed" 99% of the blacks don't know why they're voting for him.", in reference to black voters for Barack Obama. He enlisted the Lady Lynn Forrester De Rothschild, who swore that Obama was "too elitist".

And then we saw Obama Bucks. And Obama Waffles. Obama's Affirmative Action, Vote Sarah Palin. Lending to minorities caused the financial crisis and destroyed the economy of Iceland. Jesse Helms is a national hero. Colin Powell is only supporting Barack Obama because they're both black. Except Barack Obama isn't black. Michele Obama hates white people. Reverend Wright hates white people. Obama needs to reject *and* denounce Louis Farrakhan.

And those are just republican (and yeah, sometimes democrat) talking points of the past few months. So why, in the face of all that, do republicans think that they'll get the benefit of the doubt when one of them is spotted sending "Barack the Magic Negro" to his friends, hoping that they'll elect him their leader?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro

Yeah, that's it, Tommy. Everyone else fails to see the truth in what you're saying - that Republicans are basically good people who love everyone.

And, uh, "sneerly"? Really?

By the way, there was no ball. And you have no home. You're now out in the wilderness with the other Republicans, and maybe you can be one of the visionaries that leads them back to civilization. But most likely not, since you seem to be happier where they are now.

Good luck finding balls there. Let's make a deal. Find two and I'll be the first to welcome you back to the real world.

You know, for someone who seems to be all kinds of bent outta shape about people screaming "Victim!" this is pretty fucking pathetic. So somebody abbreviated your chosen handle on a message board and suddenly it's just cause to cease your righteous e-crusade concerning the "fact" that 99& of Republicans aren't racist? Cry me a fucking river, you big fucking baby. Seriously?

Listen: you've allied yourself with a political party that is objectively racist both in terms of tactics and message. If you can't handle that, then that's not our problem. Good night and good fucking riddance.

Anyway I really left because this is a conversation on a blog not a discussion. It's clearly meant to be "Republicans are racist, now let's talk about that." I was very much at cross-purposes and annoying. The host didn't seem to think so, but it was clear I was.

I cant agree with the "republicans are racist, now let's talk about that"-meme. To me it seems that the conventional wisdom in the rank-and-file republican camp is that blacks are criminals, latinos are fugitives, arabs are terrorists and white exurban christians are the only light in the american society. If u would like to refute that meme, i would gladly hear you out. But what u cannot do, is excuse that sense with "democrats are worse". democrats lie cheat and steal, and everyone is to blame except white christian republicans...who are the true victims. This to me is ridiculous. Im not saying you have said the following, but i discussed these things with a friend of mine on the right aisle of the political spectrum, and she enlightened me with the following gems:
Blacks are to lazy to realize that the dems are actually bogging them down with drugs, welfare and promises of free health-care.
Dems import Latinos from leftleaning countries in central and south america, to undermine the white exurbane votes in southern states.
the word islamofobia is PC-talk for "let islam take over".

A party that promotes these kinds of ideas as a matter of tactic (some dems, most repubs) should be castigated. A party that promotes these kind of ideas as a matter of policy (or preventative policy) should be shunned, and that further shows the ideological bankrupcy they're currently in. THAT is not useful for democracy. Im under no delusion that dems are more "moral" than any other group. BUT, right now, they certainly promote dialogue and exchange of ideas in a whole other way than republicans.

http://kylopod.blogspot.com/2008/12/stumble-for-republican-party.html

What do you make of Colin Powell's remarks concerning the direction of the GOP? Cleary this man feels that the GOP has cultivated a constituency that is hostile to, if not subtly racist to minorities. Newt Gingrich acknowledged, rather tepidly and uncomfortably after being cornered by Tavis Smiley, that the GOP has some work to do here.

That term "magic negro”, what image does this evoke for you Thomas? When I heard this I immediately thought of some kind of Jim Crow era black face skit, Jim Dandy or Amos and Andy and the like.

This follows a pattern that the GOP just appears to be married to:

Senator George Allen calling an Indian college student a "Macaca", Congressman Geoff Davis calling Barak Obama a "boy", Fox News describing Michelle Obama as a "baby’s momma", which is a colloquialism for out of wedlock children and relationships. Hmmm out of wedlock children and blacks, not like the GOP haven’t fished in this river before...never mind that the Obama’s have been married for 16 years…etc..etc..

Instead of trying to marginalize these fellows as you should; you'd rather engage in equivalency score keeping. When GOP stalwarts like General Powell and Ray LaHood comment that the GOP has a problem with minorities, I'll take their word for it.

Wrong. It's unfair and not useful for you, because you want to be able to continue voting Republican without having other people ask, "you mean that party full of racist jerks?"

Unlike most people, I don't call for the annihilation of the GOP or ever have any expectation that they're going to collapse. After all racist jerks driven by resentment deserve representation just like everyone else. People who listen to Rush Limbaugh are American citizens and they vote. They fully deserve a party which represents their interests and politicians who are going to pander to their needs. I'm not going to dress this up as anything other than what it is, though, just so you don't feel so bad about the group you've associated yourself with.

Both parties support torture and rendition. Clinton introduced rendition, Bush just continued it. Obama's secretary of state also supports torture, and Biden is fairly fascist as well.

"pro-imperialism,"

Why should we believe Obama's "humble foreign policy" any more than we believed in Bush's?

"anti-science,"

Republicans suck on evolution and stem cells. Dems suck on nuclear energy (hint: it is safe and clean), science in the courts (trial lawyers hate it) and research into racial/sexual differences in mental properties.

"pro-nepotism,"

Hillary Clinton. Caroline Kennedy.

"...there is no way that McCain should have won 46% of the popular vote."

Most of your complaints are great reasons to stay home (they were part of my motivation in not voting). But they are not reasons to pick Dems over Reps.

I think Thomas is making some good points about the weaknesses of both Democratic and Republican parties. The Democrats just look good because the Republican's 'dog whistle' has fallen out of tune.

Nevertheless, the Democratic establishment is also rotten with fealty to industry: defense, security, and pharma, particularly. Liberals and thinkers have just been given the convenient excuse to remain loyal by the abysmal stupidity and overt racism of the Republican party.

Obama, and -- to a far lesser extent -- Ron Paul, is a good reminder that insurgency can succeed. Thank God.

Maybe you missed it but this discussion didn't have anything to do with weaknesses of either party. It was ALL about racist Republicans who run their party. I am sure its hard to follow since Thomas R was scrambling all over the place to support his "Republicans aren't racist" meme but that was the genesis of the conversation and most people but not all kept pointing out to him that his blather had nothing to do with the racists who are leading the party he votes for (since he says he isn't really a Republican) Go back to the original post by Coates. It didn't have anything to do with Republicans view on climate change or their anti union stance or how they oppose gay marriage. It talked about their racist tendencies.

Now Thomas R or Ninja Zombie or whichever other Republican can come on this thread and say that everything is A OK with their party and to me thats fine. It just means that they still haven't woken up to realize that the Sean Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs in the world are going to help ensure their party never takes power again. I salute them for their willful blindness and hope they keep up their good work.

Reading comprehension FAIL.

Thomas: "The parties suck. I vote Republican because my experience of Democrats is they suck just a little more. "

Me: "Both parties support torture and rendition."

"Why should we believe Obama's "humble foreign policy" any more than we believed in Bush's?"

Didn't Obama win because he found a mature way to deal with opposition? Isn't that his deal?

Thomas R. is right about a lot of what he says, but asking the other side to be fair as he does is a loser's gambit. Ask the Democrats. He is right that the Republicans really do need to distance themselves from idiots like Limbaugh. The Republicans have been running scorched campaigns for a while now, and the gas has run out. They will now reap the wind, and that is the price a party pays for a red meat to the base strategy. It can win for a while but the other party adjusts picking up a percent or two on the margins. The red-meat party has no goodwill or trust developed with the public as a whole so they double down and toss even bloodier red meat (read Palin). Then it is wilderness time so long as the Dems are reasonably competetent.

After a while, finally, reluctantly, they will listen to more sensible folks like Thomas R.

That's the funny thing. Most of what Thomas R. says is sound advice for Republicans. More power to ya pal, but you aren't going to make a sale here. Too much bad blood. Why should Democrats listen to you? You have no advice for us besides 'be nicer'. Sell your wares down the street.

yeah, what kind of liberals are y'all?!? when Republicans like Saltzman spout their racist crap, and other Republicans like Thomas R come in and excuse and support it, real liberals are supposed to roll over and play nice.
the right answer to racism is respect for racists, right? hah-hah. no freaking way.
the era of liberals taking this racist shit lying down is OVER. these days we FIGHT THESE RACIST BASTARDS, and their lapdog apologists like Thomas.

(TNC, i love you, so i hope you're being sarcastic when you give props to this apologist for racism moron Thomas.)

Limbaugh has 10-20 million listeners. They're American citizens. They're voters. They deserve representation. Now, I, and most people with any kind of moral sense, are going to condemn and run away from the party that takes them in. But Thomas R. deludes himself into thinking that he can advocate for the republican party while expecting us not to associate him with their base and the people running to be head of the RNC. Sorry, no sale. It's not even unfair for anyone to point this out to Thomas R. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas, and people say, "I don't want to be associated with you. You have fleas and you aren't that distinguishable from a dog."

That is his analysis of what will WIN HIM HIS PARTY. So rather than castigate Chip-ster, maybe we should ask:

what about eh GOP makes him think that was a winning idea? It certainly would not win the OTHER PARTY'S LEADERSHIP. So why is his party so different?

TR: I think he's pointing out an area of legitimate concern and like most people who do that he might be exaggerating a bit for greater effect.

However I think I stated that the Republicans of today do encourage Islamophobia and homophobia. This is part of what I found so loathsome about Giuliani's campaign. His pro-choice stance meant he basically "doubled down" on appealing to the pro-torture/Anti-Islam crowd. A black gay Giuliani supporter named Deroy Murdock even did "hurray for waterboarding" or some such crud. And then you had the Tancredo/Hunter/Malkin wing encouraging hostility to Mexicans.

However to condemn these elements is not the same as saying the Republican Party is racist as such or in some fundamental way. I think part of where I went wrong is I was also treating Republicans in monolithic terms. I was fairly consistent that 15-25% of them are racist and a larger percent might be accepting of racism to get what they want. However the Republicans aren't all one thing. My hope is that this wing will realize they screwed up everything. The Limbaughs and Coulters made McCain damaged goods who felt forced to move Right when he should've moved to the center. His losing was inevitable, but he could've done better.

However many of you seemed to believe the racist element will loom larger, which to me makes no sense. The homophobic element may loom larger, in hopes of getting more Latino church-goers, but the racist element is clearly a losing proposition. Even just on a pragmatic level. If it were otherwise Tancredo or Hunter would've done well rather than tanking horribly. (For all I'm picking on him Tancredo is not precisely 100% bad, who is, he was really involved on issues concerning genocide in Sudan when long before it was on the radar screen)

"Wrong. It's unfair and not useful for you," Tyro

TR: Wrong, it's unfair and unuseful for democracy. The Republicans are not going to be replaced by the Green Party or the New Bullmoose Party or something. So you're left in a position where its total Democratic rule or rule by racists for you.

True I said equally harsh things about the Democratic Party, but I was fairly clear even then that there are other wings to the Party. Besides which I backed off a bit. The Democrats are not intentionally a party that enculcates disdain for my life or my family, it's more like a weird byproduct. Likewise many Republican policies that hurt blacks or Hispanics I think are not intended to that, they just kind of do.

"Didn't Obama win because he found a mature way to deal with opposition? Isn't that his deal?" tomtom

TR: Mostly yes. I think you shouldn't mix up me criticizing the Democratic Party, or online activist groups, with criticizing every Democratic politician in America. Obama is a person I have strong political disagreements with, but I have a good deal of respect toward. If I'd been voting for "guy I'd like on my University's faculty" I likely would have voted for him. There are others too. I have a good deal of respect for Russ Feingold as well. I haven't followed them too closely but the Democratic governors of Montana and West Virginia also seem to have many good qualities.

"but you aren't going to make a sale here. Too much bad blood. Why should Democrats listen to you?" tomtom

TR: I'm aware of this, at least I'm aware of this now.

Also I have no interest in making anyone a Republican. I mean gag. I'm registered as an independent and I was going to give to the "Democrats for Life of America" this year, but decided my finances couldn't justify it. However I think Republicans have more ideas I agree with than Democrats and that one-party rule is bad.

Anyway thanks to TNC even if it turns out he was being sarcastic. Still I admit I made mistakes and got vicious in my own right. I did focus too much on what's bad about Democrats rather than Republicans being against racism. Possibly because I dislike the Democratic Party much more than I like the Republican Party, but still it did look weak. Anyway sorry if I was pain, etc.

"Saltzman spout their racist crap, and other Republicans like Thomas R come in and excuse and support it" charles

TR: This is just a lie. I never excused or supported Saltzman's actions. My first post said "Party strategists are scum", who do you think I meant by that? Saltzman was Huckabee's strategist. I said the song was racist or racially insensitive. I basically said he should be silenced. How is that apologizing or excusing?

The idea that Republicans are somehow uniquely bad or bigoted people was just not something I agree with, that's all.

TR, I hope you stick around.

I'm gonna go hang out in the green room with Carrington Ward, Augustine, and KevDog. As I like to say: This situation is now a dick-measuring contest, and God did not give me the prerequisite equipment to compete. I'm happy to hand MoeLarryAndJesus a ruler before I leave, though.

Yes. The "angry left" can be retired now (preferably a mercy killing). The Democrats have won, it it wasn't by riding a wave of Kossac bile: it was Obama's hope, change and unity message. I know being a culture warrior feels good, but that bullshit does nothing but hurt the party. It certainky doesn't get the independants (ie me) on your side.

"That is his analysis of what will WIN HIM HIS PARTY. So rather than castigate Chip-ster, maybe we should ask:

what about eh GOP makes him think that was a winning idea? It certainly would not win the OTHER PARTY'S LEADERSHIP. So why is his party so different?"

This, this, this. I'll say it again, the party leadership needs to go. Republicans need a generational shift, and a new movement lead by a charasmatic and capable leader. The big tent has collapsed. Now there needs to be knock-down, drag-out fight between the thecons and social conservatives on one side and the libertarians and fiscal conservatives on the other. I know who I'm rooting for.

I think a main disconnect in this thread is that TR made a lot of points about how the Republicans can improve their game on a board where most readers don't want the Republicans to improve their game. They want the Republicans to go down in flames.

If you think (as I do) that Republican rule has been catastrophic for our nation you want the Republicans as far away from power as long as possible. But all good things must end. TR, like Ross Douthat, Reihan Salam, David Frum, Jim Pinkerton and a few others know the Republican Party is in real trouble and they are looking for solutions. Democrats are smart to pay attention to these people even if we do not approve of their mission. It is always smart politics to listen to the smart people on the other side. A big reason Rove failed so badly is that he did not appreciate how the Democrats were successfully chiseling in on his narrow margins.

We can take comfort that there are so few smart people on the other side. Most of the leadership seems to be stuck in the '80s when all you had to do to gather a crowd is mention Jimmy Carter or welfare or taxes. A few understand America has moved on, that the Democratic Party has cleaned up their act and shed a lot of liabilities. They are the conservatives to watch, because eventually they will lead their party out of the wilderness. If we have listened we too can adapt too and delay the eventual Republican ascendence.

America is a two-party nation which tilts in cycles. The turn-of-the-century Republican ascendence lasted up to the Depression. The New Deal Democratic ascendence lasted about up to Nixon, its death was artificially delayed by Watergate. The last Republican ascendence lasted 30-40 years. A good run, but it is now over.

We need to watch the Republicans and stay flexible to stretch out our day in the sun. Listening to people like TR doesn't men agreeing with them, but there is no point being uncivil. They will be the ones to tell us things we don't want to hear but need to consider.

Charles:"Saltzman spout their racist crap, and other Republicans like Thomas R come in and excuse and support it"

TR: This is just a lie. I never excused or supported Saltzman's actions. My first post said "Party strategists are scum", who do you think I meant by that? Saltzman was Huckabee's strategist. I said the song was racist or racially insensitive. I basically said he should be silenced. How is that apologizing or excusing?

Charles: mea culpa, my line should have been:
people like Saltzman spout their racist crap, and other Republicans like Thomas R come in and tell us that the Dems are the "real" racists, and the problem in the GOP is not racism, but "communication" problems, thus acting as lapdogs for the racists.
(TR: "The most racist people I know are Democrats, but Democrats are better liars and more skillfull evaders. Republicans right now suck at communication. All their base hatreds just come out rather than being masked the way a good Democrat would.")

so my point, proven by TR's words, is that he represents the GOP's attempt at writing off open racism and hostility to minority groups as "bad communication" while claiming that despite an obvious reord that proves otherwise, the Dems are the real racists. that is completely non-serious and laughable, and in my book, is a textbook case of apologizing for the PARTY of racism. and that makes him a lapdog for racist Republicans, IMO.

the GOP is the PARTY of racism, that doesn't mean all Repubs are racists, and it certainly doesn't men all Dems are non-racist. but it does mean when you support the GOP you support racism, simple and plain. and in that case, obfuscation is the only path for those who want to support the GOP and claim not to support racism, thus we get responses like Thomas R's.

That said, there is one fundamental difference between the conservative miscreants and the liberal a-holes: the conservatives in many cases are high party officers, like Saltsman. The liberals who do the same kind of thing typically are not party leaders.

Another thing that the GOP needs to come to grip with: the great unwashed that showed up on YouTube during the campaign and basically drove many a White moderate to Obama. I mean, seriously, that Palin rally in Strongsville, Ohio? (I used to live there -- a nice town, really.) How could you watch the unmitigated ignorance and racism and act like it meant nothing? How many Asians saw the California GOP group's "Obama Bucks" and wondered "gee, what would they call me if I ran for office?"? GOPers NEVER ask that question, or consider the ramifications. Instead, all you hear from the GOPer side is the cop-out phrase "isolated incident." Only when it happens over and over again, in state after state after state, it doesn't look so isolated, does it? And when I see video of racist behavior at a GOP rally, but only hear rumors of intemperate conduct at an Obama rally, it doesn't have nearly the juice, does it?

So here we are: the GOP is now the party that stormfront.com rallies to and Hannity is boosting something called "the resistence" . . . nice, cons, nice!

The idea that Republicans are somehow uniquely bad or bigoted people was just not something I agree with, that's all. "

Oh PUH-LEEZE, Tommy. You didn't stop there. You had to add that the most racist people you know are Democrats. A claim no one here can confirm, of course, and one which is ENTIRELY self and party-serving.

You're trying to pull off the same "maverick" act McCain tried to sell, but that doesn't work when you're behaving as a party apparatchik, and that's what you've been doing here. Like tomtom said, peddle those wares elsewhere.

By design, action and rhetoric the GOP is the party of racism in the US today. I see no reason to think that will change tomorrow, and neither does Bobby Jindal, which is why he's already announced he won't run in 2012.

ML&J: I understand and agree with most of what you're saying in response to TR, but come on with that Jindal stuff. No one wants to run in 2012 because it's unlikely that Obama will mess up that badly and the power of incumbency is strong. Jindal's still young and can continue as governor while the GOP desperately looks for a flagbearer. Jindal's just playing smart politics.

TR: I also like a lot of what you're saying. A value an opposition party. However, as much as you try and backtrack from your previous comments, when you say outlandish stuff like the things charles and ML&J have you on record for saying in this vary post, you're not going to be taken seriously. In general, the majority can be as belligerent as it wishes, but if the minority wants to be taken seriously and respected, he has to respect the majority; for quite some time you were acting like an asshole to many, and you continue to be an apologist for the Republicans. That said, I think you are a valued comments on this blog.