Steele Calls For Black Voters to Come Home
Written by Sam on April 6th, 2008
In a conversation before the event, Steele said he’s heard the concerns about the economy and the war in Iraq — what he said are the two signature issues in the 2008 elections. He doesn’t discount their sentiments, though he does discount the poll, or “anything that comes out of the New York Times and CBS.”
There are families in distress, he said, but he would like to see “less sky is falling” talk and more about how the country — and his party — will grow and rebuild.
The Republican Party must embrace African American voters, casualties of a Southern strategy by Republicans that won presidential elections but “lost credibility on the one issue that matters most” — the civil rights of all people, according to Steele.
There is still racism, he said. “I don’t remember passing that mile marker saying you are now entering a post-racial era.” But he said Democrats don’t have all the answers.
Steele is referring to the Nixon campaign’s “Southern Strategy” where they basically exploited racial anxiety among white Democrats to win their votes and pull them over to the Republican Party. It worked. The GOP now has close to a solid lock on the southern states and we have won seven out of the last ten Presidential elections, but at the cost of alienating close to 90% of black voters around the country, people who use to be solid Republican voters because of our party’s victory in ending slavery in this country. Things have changed, though. The party is more conservative than in those days and very welcoming to anyone that believes in the principles of small government and personal freedom, but there hasn’t been outreach to pull minorities back in.
Steele sees contradictions between the welcoming words of many Democrats and their actions toward African Americans, which he characterized as: “We’ll let you know when you get to lead; we’ll let you know when you get to take charge.”
“Barack Obama broke through the system,” Steele said; he admires him for that, if not his politics.
Steele said he will advise McCain to not “miss this opportunity” to speak to black voters
In his appearance in Memphis on the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King on Friday, McCain apologized for opposing a federal holiday for the civil rights leader. Apologizing was the right thing to do, Steele said.
He said he planned to challenge those at Friday’s dinner to “bring a friend, bring a neighbor, bring someone different” to the next event. In the GOP, “we haven’t been the most welcoming of souls.”
In this year of Democrats making history, Steele doesn’t seem worried that his party has fallen behind.
“History will take care of itself.”
Steele has an excellent point regarding the way the Democrat Party has treated black voters. They use them when they need them at election time and nothing more. After 40 years of practically non-wavering allegiance to the Democrats black Americans are worse off today than they were in the late sixties and seventies, in my opinion. Over 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. The vast majority of inner cities are made up of black Americans and they are over ridden with crime, drugs, and filth. It was the Democrat Party that opposed the Civil Rights movement and they seem to have succeeded. While black Americans are no longer slaves or second class citizens, they have been kept at the bottom of a caste system through race baiting poverty pimps padding their pockets and a government controlled welfare state that has destroyed their families, neighborhoods, and schools. This was not the dream that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr spoke of.
It is conservative policies that will lift black Americans out of being the poorest socio-economic class in this country. Conservative policies of school choice so they can get their children out of failing and dangerous schools. Conservative policies of low taxation and regulation will spur jobs and development in their neighborhoods and make goods and services more affordable. Conservative policies of a strong family unit would drastically cut down on out of wedlock births and children born into poverty. It should be a no brainer, but the Democrats have done a bang up job over the years of addicting them to the state and convincing them that the Republican Party is a party solely for rich, white men.
The GOP needs to start taking a more active role in doing what Steele suggests. It still irks me that he was passed up for RNC Chairman over Mel Martinez, not because he is black, but because he is a great visionary who can appeal to Americans of all color and creed. Michael Steele is not going away. We are going to see more great things from this man going forward.
6
PM
There are two serious errors:
“…It was the Democrat Party that opposed the civil rights movement…”
In fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law by President Johnson. If you look hard enough, you may discover that President Johnson was a Democrat. A majority of Democrats in both chambers voted for the bill. What you may be confused about is that Trent Lott’s friend Strom Thurmond fillibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Mr. Thurmond, as you may recall, eventually found his viewpoint more at home with the Republican party.
“…Conservative policies of school choice so they can get their children out of failing and dangerous schools…”
In fact, the evidence on vouchers shows very serious cream-skimming by private schools. As a result, vouchers effectively provide a subsidy for wealthy whites like yourself who would send your children to private school anyway, taking resources away from the public schools that blacks attend.
6
PM
I love how Publius assumes Sam came from an upper class background. From my hometown, the only people I know of who sent their kids to private school could be called rich white liberals.
6
PM
don’t even try it Ryan. You know what party most wealthy people are part of, and it’s because they need their business interests protected, after all, money first and people last.
6
PM
Sorry, Roger. Not so
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed110607a.cfm
6
PM
Sam, we’ve been over this. Democrats control the richest districts, however the richest people in those districts (except for Hollywood and Silicon Valley) vote Republican, so your point is simply wrong.
6
PM
Neither party can claim a monopoly on any socioeconomic group.
7
AM
I also showed an exit poll clearly showing that propensity to vote Republican increased as income increased.
Sam apparently never took a course discussing the dangers of using aggregated data to make conclusions at an individual level.
7
AM
No party can claim a complete monopoly, sure. Overwhelming majorities, though, are a different story, and the difference is primarily semantic.
7
AM
Sorry Publius, the strongest support came from Republicans…
1964 Civil Rights Act - Votes by Party:
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 164-96 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 186-35 (84%-16%)
7
AM
David,
So your defense is that among those districts filled with rich white liberals, there are a small number of even wealthier Republicans? Way to defend your populist party image! Do you realize how ridiculous that argument is considering that the poorest individuals in those districts are far wealthier that anyone in many rural Republican and inner-city Democratic districts? That, on top of the fact that special interest and K street money is stampeding in to congressional Democrats over Republicans makes the class warfare routine truly laughable.
7
AM
I’m not talking about class warfare and am not in support of such arguments. I’m just saying that citing a series of intentionally misleading statistics from the conservative equivalent of moveon.org does not prove anything.
7
AM
Publius’ exit poll did not show the correlation he is indicating, I remember it being posted. Plus, there were no additional data indicating district, election type, and historical trends.
IL Voter:
You are seeing what happens when the facts begin to shatter liberal dogma. Here we have two outstanding cases: decades of black entrapment in poverty by the democratic party, and the alignment of the wealthy with the liberals.
What will Dem candidates repeat ad nauseum on the campaign trails if they can’t call republicans rich racists? Its not as if they have any real solutions to any single problem. Perhaps Howard Dean will train all of his candidates to become mimes.
-And the Heritage/Moveon comparison is nothing short of idiotic.
7
AM
Moveon.org is a nonprofit political think tank that also supports particular candidates and campaigns against others. It espouses extremist views that really annoy the other side, and has many of the best-educated members of its political movement contributing.
The Heritage Foundation is a nonprofit political think tank that also supports particular candidates and campaigns against others. It espouses extremist views that really annoy the other side, and has many of the best-educated members of its political movement contributing.
And we don’t need to call Republicans rich racists- we can call them corrupt psycho-religious warmongerers. I personally prefer more civilized debate, but these options now exist as well.
7
AM
I forgot to mention this- I find move.org whackos as distasteful as y’all do. However, conservative whackos are distasteful as well.
7
AM
Well, there it is folks. Another “tolerant” liberal that doesnt like other peoples religion. Its like all of you libs were made with a cookie cutter. Bigots, just plain old bigots with a shiny cover.
And your comparison of Heritage and Moveon only demonstrates your foolishness to some of the people who read/write this site and are deeply knowledgeable of both.
7
PM
Dave,
I brought it up as an alternative name-calling technique, and specifically said that I didn’t like using such name-calling.
It annoys me a great deal how you correctly criticize liberal whackos but praise conservative whackos. Whackos are always bad, even if they partially agree with you.
Also, I am many things, but tolerant is not one of them.
7
PM
Dave —
The poll shows exactly what I indicated:
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
Propensity to vote Republican clearly increases with income. The only concern that was raised is that the poll is from CNN, and Rush Limbaugh says that CNN is the communist news network.
However, just for fun, here are several more polls showing a monotonically increasing percentage of Republican voters as income increases:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/ushouse.pdf
I assume that the people on this website will simply assert that the liberal media (including Fox) publishes fraudulent information in every single poll. As you may know, in the conservative community, this constitutes an intelligent response to any point raised.
7
PM
Also, your own description of the “Southern Strategy” shows that Republicans actively sought out racists… this may not still be the case but it was not all that long ago….
8
AM
These, of course, are different polls that the one you posted a few months ago which demonstrated zero trending. These do show a trend in that direction. The important takeaway from these polls is that republicans get majorities with every income level above 30K (according to the CNN poll). Now, what does that say? What did those poor people have to gain by voting democratic? Why do the people who pay 100% of the bills in this country vote republican?
For all of the libs reading this site: Please demonstrate one single liberal policy that substantively contributes to the poor getting out of poverty.
11
PM
Dave,
You are being immature and ridiculous. First, you cite a misleading report and claim it proves something, and say that no one can possibly find a report that proves the opposite is true. When Publius successfully finds a series of reports that say the opposite is true, you choose to interpret the results differently.
We have no demonstrated that most of the poor people in this country are Democrats, and most of the rich are Republicans. You seem to be claiming that being a Republican is what made them rich, and being a Democrat is what made them poor. Yikes. Are you unwilling to ever admit that you are wrong?
11
PM
Look at the CNN data. At 30k - 50k it was 49-50 Bush/Kerry. Above that, it was Bush at 55% or better. Since folks that make less than 30k pay little to zero tax, it is the TRUE taxpayers in this country that are majority republican, and it scales with amount of taxes paid.
Basically, the democrats have no interest in fixing poverty, because once those people start making real money, they start voting republican. In other words, the libs buy the poor vote with welfare money that does only enough to keep them poor. Has there really not been a liberal politician in the last 50 years that has had any other idea on how to fix poverty besides more welfare? Of course there has, but that is in direct conflict with their party’s interests.
Ill sum it up with this: The war on poverty has failed for roughly 40 straight years to achieve a single shred of progress. Sounds like we need to “re-deploy” that money elsewhere and change course.
Change. Hope. Change. Hope. Change. Hope.
Gotta run, I am under heavy sniper fire.
12
AM
Dave — The issue of who people should or should not vote for is a separate issue that we may well discuss at some point in the future. I have never said anything about this.
The point is that you and several others loudly asserted that the common belief that poorer people tend to vote Democrat and wealthier people tend to vote Republican was false. I then showed a series of polls showing that this is, in fact, true.
Rather than admit that you were wrong, you simply switched to loudly asserting that poor people should not vote Democrat. I’ll take this deflection as an admission of your earlier error.
12
AM
“once those people start making real money, they start voting republican. ”
There is not a shred of evidence to support this, what the data says is that people who PRESENTLY make more money tend to vote Republican (In other words, what Publius and I have been saying and you have been saying is false for months). It doesn’t say that a lifelong Democrat who becomes rich all of a sudden magically becomes Republican. This is “snapshot” data, not time trend, and even Fox News wouldn’t dare to blatantly make up something like what you just said.
No one claims that welfare helps get people out of poverty, it is a stopgap. However, it keeps people from starving to death. Here are some liberal programs (note I am saying liberal, NOT necessarily Democrat) that get people out of poverty that have worked.
1) Affirmative action- though NOW the program has many problems (you guys have many times brought up the middle-class minority student who gets accepted over the poor white student), in its inception the program allowed poor minorities to get into good colleges and into good jobs. We presently have minority billionaires, and we haven’t always. Not everyone has been helped but many have been.
2) School integration. The conservative “Separate but equal” resulted in what can’t be described in any terms other than poor minorities getting a horrible education that can’t possibly result in people lifting themselves out of poverty. What we have now isn’t great but it is better by any measure.
3) Federal student loans. Conservative resistance to this has been along the lines of “we shouldn’t spend money other than on national defense” or “it isn’t in the Constitution so the Federal government shouldn’t do it”. Without these programs, only the rich could attend elite universities, which (as a Duke alumnus) I hope will result in good jobs.
“The war on poverty has failed for roughly 40 straight years to achieve a single shred of progress.” While all the goals haven’t been met (to a noticeable but not 100% extent because of conservative opposition), there has certainly been progress. The conservative policy of repeating over and over again that there is nothing holding people back but themselves has resulted in far less progress.
Gotta run, gay marriage and the atheists are coming to kill Western society.
13
PM
Publius:
“Rather than admit that you were wrong, you simply switched to loudly asserting that poor people should not vote Democrat.”
Me from comment 19:
“These do show a trend in that direction”
Looks like I was saying I was wrong, but then again, maybe you had a public school education. I try to avoid displaying my utter disdain for liberals, but comments like that one just make me want to ask: Are you a f**king idiot? Can you not read?
13
PM
“These do show a trend in this direction” is a far cry from “Wow, everything I have been saying for three months is completely wrong and you were completely right”.
13
PM
Dave,
I did go to public school. My school, Pine View, ranks in the top 21 elite public high schools in the nation:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/33647/page/3
Pine View outranks every private school in the county, and every private school in the state of Florida except one.
The existence of Pine View irritates the Republicans in Sarasota county for two reasons:
1. Admission is strictly by merit, and there is absolutely no way to buy your way in, like there is to everything else in life. If your spoiled rich kids are too stupid, they go to a school that is inferior to Pine View no matter how much money you have.
2. Spoiled rich kids who do manage to be admitted have to sit in classrooms next to poor people who outperform them.
I had a fancy liberal arts undergraduate education (top 20), and the academic standards were abominable relative to my high school; I graduated with a 3.98, majoring in math and economics, and did perhaps 2 hours of work outside of class each week. I left with the impression that these fancy private school are just a resort holiday for spoiled rich kids. By contrast, I went to grad school at a public university, and what we expected of freshmen undergraduates far exceeded what was expected even of seniors at my fancy private school.
You touched a nerve with your comment — I’m incredibly proud of my public school education, and I’d be willing to match it up by ANY objective standard to any of your fancy private schools (where one can succeed by being wealthy instead of by merit).
14
PM
Publius, let’s back down here, name-calling won’t solve anything.
Let’s focus on the fact that Dave was completely caught lying about the Democrats being the “party of the rich” and is unwilling to admit it with anything better than a passing reference.
Also, I’m taking the fact that no one has chosen to disprove my examples of liberal programs that help pull people out of poverty as evidence that they are correct. While these programs aren’t perfect, Dave’s challenge was to find program that help “at all”, and these certainly do.
15
PM
Publius:
Apparently they skipped reading in your math/econ studies. And for the record, I went to public school too, and I am not from a wealthy family. Just a smart guy.
Shiffman:
I am guessing you are single. And about student loans, you realize that the infinite availability of student loans are the primary reason for the soaring cost of college. When you subsidize the crap out of something, you get lots of it. Liberals will have to have an extra broccoli smoothie to understand this, but it is true.
15
PM
Why are we moderating comments?
15
PM
Single, as in not married, or not dating? One is true, and one isn’t, but I fail to see the relevance. Because I post so often (it’s actually a way to kill time at work)? Because I mentioned gay marriage? Because I don’t recognize “these do show a trend in that direction” as being equivalent to “wow, I was completely wrong and you were completely right”?
The infinite availability of loans isn’t the reason for the soaring cost of college. Dumb expenses by those colleges are. For example, Duke just spent $100,000 on a water-mister in our student plaza, and $50,000 for segways for the campus police (slower than bikes, and unlike bikes can’t go down stairs).
Also, STUDENT LOANS HELP POOR PEOPLE AFFORD COLLEGE. This is a universal good that HELPS PULL POOR PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, which is what your original challenge was about. If we didn’t have these loans, only the rich could afford elite colleges.
I agree about moderating comments- this is a new and annoying trend.
15
PM
I would appreciate some feedback from people other than Publius, chemistrydave, and I.
Some background to catch y’all up:
1) ChemistryDave has been saying for months that more rich people vote democratic than Republican. Publius and I challenged him on this. He asked us to find proof, and Publius found three polls (one from FoxNews, to avoid suspicions of liberal bias) that showed that Dave was wrong and we were right. Not partially, 100%.
2) The only acknowledgment Dave made of being proven completely wrong was “these do show a trend in that direction”. I have called on him to make a complete apology and admission of being wrong, he has refused and has instead taken to name-calling and avoiding the subject.
3) Dave then challenged us to find examples of liberal programs that help pull people out of poverty “at all”. See my comment #23 for detailed explanations of three- none are perfect but all help to a noticeable extent.
4) Dave has refused to comment on two of them at all, and instead tries to change the subject to talking about subsidies, and again is name-calling instead of addressing issues.
I would appreciate some of the conservatives on this site who are actually capable of intelligent thought to criticize Dave for being ridiculous and immature, and to call on him to admit he was wrong. He does your movement a grave disservice.
15
PM
Do you think Duke would have bought that watermister if enrollment had dropped by 10% this year?
15
PM
As we presently admit only about 10% of those who apply, I’m not concerned about a drop in enrollment.
And I don’t see how the government helping to pay for students to go to school would result in less people going to school. I do see how the government NOT helping to pay for students to go to school will result in less people going, but that’s the opposite of your point.
15
PM
I give up. I cannot argue with a liberal that only wants to talk about how brilliant they are.
Read this slowly and see if it sinks in: I am not asking you about your concerns. I am trying to illustrate that as long as programs are being overrun by students with unlimited access to cheap debt, they will raise tuition and waste that money. Now, if a school was not attracting as many people as they wanted to, they may drop their tuition a bit to attract more people from other schools who are outcompeting them in the marketplace. Of course at a select number of high end schools, this is not the case because of outside factors (ie people like you will pay whatever b/c its Duke or Yale, etc.). But for 95+ percent of college students in the US, their tuition is going up soley b/c the admin recognizes that they can charge that 5% more and they will get it.
Now I realize that mentioning a free market will cause some people to have coronary events. However, if colleges were more market oriented (and the govt loan programs prevent them from that) then they would improve their prices and their educational programs. This is undeniable.
One more thing so that everyone’s tofu will not be upset. Yes, the very poor (i.e. non tax paying) are in a different situation wrt student loans, but that again is a small percentage. I would be curious to compare the average increases in large state school tuitions (ie. UNC/USC/UGA/UF) versus the local community colleges where a significant number of lower income students go. Ill bet $50 of my elitist, white money (without even looking it up) that the rate of increase for community colleges are vastly lower.
15
PM
“Yes, the very poor (i.e. non tax paying) are in a different situation wrt student loans,”
That’s what brought this whole discussion up originally! You challenged us to find a liberal program that brought people OUT OF POVERTY. Now you’re saying that those in poverty don’t count in such a discussion?
And enough with the tofu and broccoli. I hate vegetarians as much as you do. Enough with the name calling in general. I’m not talking about how I’m so much smarter than conservatives, I’m saying that YOUR POINTS ARE FACTUALLY INACCURATE. You’re the one who is claiming to know everything and be infallible.
Also, of course the community colleges tuition increase rates are lower. That’s completely irrelevant to this discussion. No one is saying that it’s difficult to afford community college. Compare the average salaries of a Yale grad to those of a community college grad. If the goal is to PULL PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY, higher salaries are key. Community college is irrelevant to this discussion.
Once again you’ve managed to contradict yourself within one post. “people like you will pay whatever b/c its Duke or Yale, etc…. if colleges were more market oriented then they would improve their prices and their educational programs.”
So what you’re saying is there are lots of rich people who will be willing to pay no matter what the cost is, but somehow if we stop allowing the poor to attend elite schools (and make no mistake, that’s exactly what NOT PAYING FOR POOR PEOPLE TO GO TO ELITE SCHOOLS does), then costs will go down? This is silly. If colleges were more free market, then only the rich would attend elite colleges. We actually have proof of this- it’s how things used to be before federal student loans.
And colleges ARE free market- they can choose what to charge and what services to offer freely. The only thing not free market is that we are allowing the poor to participate.
15
PM
I would appreciate some feedback from people other than Publius, chemistrydave, and I.
Some background to catch y’all up:
1) ChemistryDave has been saying for months that more rich people vote democratic than Republican. Publius and I challenged him on this. He asked us to find proof, and Publius found three polls (one from FoxNews, to avoid suspicions of liberal bias) that showed that Dave was wrong and we were right. Not partially, 100%.
2) The only acknowledgment Dave made of being proven completely wrong was “these do show a trend in that direction”. I have called on him to make a complete apology and admission of being wrong, he has refused and has instead taken to name-calling and avoiding the subject.
3) Dave then challenged us to find examples of liberal programs that help pull people out of poverty “at all”. See my comment #23 for detailed explanations of three- none are perfect but all help to a noticeable extent.
4) Dave has refused to comment on two of them at all, and instead tries to change the subject to talking about subsidies, and again is name-calling instead of addressing issues.
I would appreciate some of the conservatives on this site who are actually capable of intelligent thought to criticize Dave for being ridiculous and immature, and to call on him to admit he was wrong. He does your movement a grave disservice.
15
PM
Dave needs to go back to ECON 101. High tuition is just a method of price discrimination — schools are increasingly setting the tuition high but giving more generous aid packages. It’s just a way to charge different prices to different groups of people (rather than a more moderate but uniform tuition). Your ECON 101 also would have taught you that price discrimination improves efficiency in the market.
15
PM
Not a single point of mine is inaccurate. I also think this is a beautiful example of total incomprehension of free market theory! Im sure Duke has a course on that.
But, since I am bored with beating my head against a wall explaining reality to a liberal, lets act wild and use a reverse example. If the student loan program was the savior of the poor, why are there still legions in poverty? Why have poverty rates not changed in 50 years? And if more student loan money equals better education, why is the average college grad now less skilled than at any time in US history? Student debt is at an all time high. In fact, poverty in this country is the 3rd highest in the developed world according to our friends at Wikipedia. All hail the savior of the poor, the liberal!
15
PM
I keep saying that these programs aren’t perfect, and they might not even be the best possible solution. However, they help some people, and you are not proposing an alternate solution.
Poverty rates are actually worse in the last seven years than in the eight before that. I wonder how we can blame liberals for that.
“If the student loan program was the savior of the poor, why are there still legions in poverty?” ONCE AGAIN, it helps SOME PEOPLE, not everyone. There are people who are not in poverty now who would be if not for the federal student loan that allowed them to go to a good college that allowed them to get a good job. That is an undeniable fact that completely undermines your argument.
“The average college grad less skilled than any time in U.S. history”- that would of course depend on how you define “skilled”, but is still not based on reality.
15
PM
Dave, you need to stop changing the subject and occasionally admit that you are wrong.
15
PM
STOP! STOP! STOP! STOP!
All three of you are acting like squabbling siblings in the back seat during a long car trip. Enough!
The most important question I had regarding this discussion was never asked- so I’ll do it now:
What’s wrong with more rich people supporting Republicans?
Seriously. What’s wrong with it? I thought that being rich (assuming you didn’t rob a bank or anything) was a good thing. It meant you were successful, worked hard, and made good decisions. If someone like that supported me, I’d be happy.
There’s too much wealth envy in this country. I’ve spoken with too many clueless liberals who say “rich” with the same inflection they’d use to say “enema”. They feel as if anyone who has more money than they do must have swindled it from someone. But most people know that the vast majority of the rich in this country earned their wealth through hard work, innovation, education, and opportunity. If I were running for office, I’d want people like that supporting me.
It’s the rich people out there who create jobs, pay more taxes, give more to charity, build our economy, and more. It’s the investments from rich people that create new technologies. Rich people create more opportunities for more people to become successful, do they not?
What’s wrong with getting more support from rich people than from poor? No poor person has ever given me a job or been one of my business clients; plenty of rich people have.
I think rich people AND poor people should support conservative philosophy. I think black AND white people should be in favor of what most of the posters on this page espouse. Small government is good for everyone. Self-reliance is good for everyone. Low taxes are really good for everyone. And being rich is a hell of a lot better than being poor.
Alright. I’m done. But before anyone asks- no, I’m not rich. Far from it, in fact. But I do own a small business that one day, hopefully, will get me some major coinage.
And the next time I visit Duke, along with the chapel and the gardens, I’ll have to check out that new water-mister thingie. I missed it the last time I was there.
And Shiffman- I happen to be a vegetarian. Yes- a conservative vegetarian. It’s not nice to hate vegetarians.
15
PM
“What’s wrong with more rich people supporting Republican”
Absolutely nothing. The issue was that Dave falsely said that it wasn’t the case and then refused to admit he was wrong when confronted with evidence and continued name calling. To continue the children in the backseat analogy, “he started it”.
I’m sorry that you missed the water mister, it’s neat-o. If you’re here in the next couple of weeks, look me up. Unlike most others on this site I use my real name (not accusing, just stating a fact).
16
AM
What?! My mother named me Publius!
16
AM
I retracted my comment, county and country are in fact different words. I should have known the scholar would not have made a mistake like that. My apologies Publius.
16
AM
God, I love the feeling I get when liberals talk to me like I am a 5 year old. I really do.
16
PM
Put your comment back up modulo the error. The rest of your comment made an interesting point!
2
PM
I’m a sixty year old Black American. I was, at one point, a Rockefeller Republican. I watched the GOP get hijacked by the so-called Religious Right and watched as Nixon played the ultimate racist game in the ’70’s. I have continued to watch the GOP stand in staunch opposition to any attempt by America to deal with its racially divisive past.
I harbor no illusions that the GOP will not continue to use any tactic it can, including race, to force its ideology of “business first; people maybe” on our nation.
I do not speak for all Black people, only myself when I say I consider the GOP a threat to me, Black people and our nation.
Dismiss this as simply the ranting of a minority in a minority if you will, but I KNOW I am not alone in this view.
2
PM
And what exactly have the Democrats done for you, Jonscott?
3
AM
You are not alone in your world view or your ignorance. I have not heard such an unbelievable pile of crap in at least 48 hours.
4
AM
To Sam: A racial minority in America can’t necessarily use “for me” as a measure of experience so much as “to me” when it comes to either party. And then one must add “recently”.
To ChemistryDave: “… have not heard such an unbelievable pile of crap in a least 48 hours”?
Must be the voices in your head again … take you meds.
4
PM
Jonscott: If you consider the GOP to be a threat to you, then you should justify that with some reasoning.
You say that you don’t speak for all black people, but for a lot. Well, no kidding, since the Democratic Party has had majority of blacks’ support for some time now. Just pointing out the obvious.
I really wish people would move beyond identity politics (this includes both race and gender, and throwing out “you must have gone to public school,” ChemistryDave, that has nothing to do with the conversation). We could spend that time actually debating the merits of policies rather than throwing out the race card (or any other card).
5
AM
First. This post is months old.
Second. Its a joke/commentary on public education Langley. I went to public school.