Exposing the lack of compassion by conservatives and
debunking right wing hypocrisy at every opportunity.
Just how trivial would the GOP be if they were not the safe haven for sexists and racists? Is it even possible for them to win elections without catering to the bigots and lizard brains?
Via John Cole and Shakes, we learn the GOP fears charges of racism, sexism so much they are now polling and focus group testing just how close they can come to just flat out calling Hillary Clinton a shrieking "ryhmes with punt" or Barack Obama an uppity "N" word and not get in too much trouble.
I'd give just about anything to see the internal data on this crap. Just how close to the gutter can they lean before they get spattered with their own sewage? Just what code words can get through the filters without gumming up the works?
The standard analysis of the Post-Reagan Republican coalition is that it stands on three legs: the jingoistic warrior tribe, the theocons, and the robber barons of Wall Street, with varying degrees of overlap between the main groups. Of course this misses the 800 pound gorilla even the most simplistic historical account of the conservative movement that co-opted the GOP highlights -- their Nixonian "Southern Strategy" that has welcomed racists of all stripes to their fold.
Not to get too caught up in the metaphor, but as someone who buys bar stools by the dozens I know all too well the inherent stability of a three-legged platform is a far cry from the disorder and internal inconsistencies the conservative coalition exhibits. They never ignore but barely mention that embarrassing fourth leg that makes the whole operation wobble until you shove a matchbook or other incendiary device under it.
As good as Shake's advice is, (and you have no idea how much I wish she'd been able to stay with the Edwards campaign), simply not being a racist or sexist is not really an option for a national Republican candidate who is serious about winning. I really think they need those people. Why else would they need to play the race card in every damn election? Indeed, why else would they be studying just where the line is between opposing a woman or an African-American, and vilifying them.
Are there bigots and chauvinist pigs who call themselves Democrats? Sure. I know several of them. The difference is they know they are unwelcome, they keep their chromosomally challenged opinions mostly to themselves, and they simply don't constitute a significant voting bloc the party must cater to.
Via John Cole and Shakes, we learn the GOP fears charges of racism, sexism so much they are now polling and focus group testing just how close they can come to just flat out calling Hillary Clinton a shrieking "ryhmes with punt" or Barack Obama an uppity "N" word and not get in too much trouble.
I'd give just about anything to see the internal data on this crap. Just how close to the gutter can they lean before they get spattered with their own sewage? Just what code words can get through the filters without gumming up the works?
The standard analysis of the Post-Reagan Republican coalition is that it stands on three legs: the jingoistic warrior tribe, the theocons, and the robber barons of Wall Street, with varying degrees of overlap between the main groups. Of course this misses the 800 pound gorilla even the most simplistic historical account of the conservative movement that co-opted the GOP highlights -- their Nixonian "Southern Strategy" that has welcomed racists of all stripes to their fold.
Not to get too caught up in the metaphor, but as someone who buys bar stools by the dozens I know all too well the inherent stability of a three-legged platform is a far cry from the disorder and internal inconsistencies the conservative coalition exhibits. They never ignore but barely mention that embarrassing fourth leg that makes the whole operation wobble until you shove a matchbook or other incendiary device under it.
As good as Shake's advice is, (and you have no idea how much I wish she'd been able to stay with the Edwards campaign), simply not being a racist or sexist is not really an option for a national Republican candidate who is serious about winning. I really think they need those people. Why else would they need to play the race card in every damn election? Indeed, why else would they be studying just where the line is between opposing a woman or an African-American, and vilifying them.
Are there bigots and chauvinist pigs who call themselves Democrats? Sure. I know several of them. The difference is they know they are unwelcome, they keep their chromosomally challenged opinions mostly to themselves, and they simply don't constitute a significant voting bloc the party must cater to.
Subscribe via Email
0 Comments:
POST A COMMENT