Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Wrong Choice for the Future of the GOP

The Wrong Choice for the Future of the GOP

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As a delegate to the Texas Republican state convention I get regular mailings from state party chairman Tina Benkiser. Most of the time these are appropriate and informative, with a general thrust of asking for money to support the state party. Exactly what I'd expect to get from the state party chairman. I've heard some negative things about Benkiser in the past, but in my limited contact with her through these emails she's just been a professional doing her job.

Today I got another fundraising email from Benkiser, urging me to get my official Republican Party of Texas membership card and send in a nice donation to help fight the Obama administration. Sounds reasonable, but then she decided to fill me in on Obama's nefarious plans:

President Obama is already appeasing these far left elements that were the base of his support. Talk is that his very first executive order will allow homosexuals to openly serve in the United States Military.

Of all the things which Obama can do in the coming year to enact a far left agenda, this is the issue she chooses to focus on? What could be more backwards, more offensive and more ill-conceived?

At a time when the GOP is trying to reinvent itself and many of us want to go back to the root values of the party and restore some integrity, this is really the wrong issue to bring up. The Republican party was founded and built on a belief in individual liberty and the idea that all are created equal and should be treated equally. The party went to war to protect the rights of minorities. To pledge the party to taking a stand against minority rights is so wrong-headed that it boggles the mind.

It's also remarkably stupid on a purely political basis. In the years since Clinton instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the military, it has become increasingly unpopular with virtually every segment of the population. It is seen as hypocritical, unrealistic and counterproductive. Hundreds of retired military officers have come out publicly against it, and a recent ABC News poll shows that 75% of the public in general, 64% of Republicans, 64% of conservatives and 76% of independent voters favor allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Not only is Benkiser's position bigoted, it's also politically foolish.

Benkiser has a track record of bad decisions and making enemies as chairman of the Texas GOP. In addition to her hostility towards gays, she's a rabid nativist and declared a culture war on Hispanics in Texas, a remarkably stupid position to take in a state with such a large Hispanic population. She's also hated by the grassroots of the Texas GOP and libertarian independents who are a great source for potential future recruits. She outraged many delegates and observers with her high-handed handling of party business at the state GOP convention and dictatorial practices and rule violations which resulted in a lawsuit and left many delegates feeling disenfranchised. She was also behind ramrodding through many of the worst elements of the reprehensible Texas GOP platform. She's an embarrassment to the Texas GOP and she's symptomatic of the failed politics of hate and exclusion which the GOP needs to purge once and for all. Her extremist beliefs have been divisive; she has damaged the party enormously, and her reputation is spreading nationwide.

Benkiser is hoping to move up in national politics as co-chair of the Republican National Committee with Ken Blackwell, who has committed to bring her with him if he wins, to satisfy the party's requirement of having a female co-chair with a male chairman. Unfortunately, taking the national job doesn't require her to resign from the Texas chairmanship and her term is not up until 2010. Blackwell has formed this alliance with Benkiser to appeal to fundamentalist christians who make up about 40% of the members of the Republican National Committee. The problem is that the 168 insiders who make up the RNC are not very representative of the party as a whole, and in winning over the extremists among them Blackwell may well lose the support of the grassroots and alienate potential new Republicans.

Benkiser's vision is of a GOP based around conservative christian values, a vision of a party which has a limited constituency and very little potential for growth. She would create an ideologically hidebound party which will never have broad national appeal and which would be doomed to permanent minority status. It is also a party which would have abandoned traditional Republican values of limited government, economic prosperity and individual liberty and replaced them with a theocratic statism which is contrary to the constitution; unappealing to the general population and to many elements within the party. Benkiser is symptomatic of the wrong turn which the GOP took after the presidency of Ronald Reagan and which ultimately led to the nationwide losses of 2006 and 2008.

Promoting her to a higher position in the party when she really ought to be sent home to Houston in shame, is incomprehensible. Under no circumstances should she be considered for higher office, and Ken Blackwell ought to be rejected as well if he continues to support her. I had held out some hope for Blackwell based on an excellent speech I heard him make at the Americans for Prosperity conference in DC last fall, but his alliance with Benkiser along with his endorsement from the bigots at Eagle Forum has made me realize that all of his talk about building a better, stronger and more principled GOP and returning to the core values of the party is just hogwash; he’s willing to sell out to the worst elements in the party to get elected.

Tina Benkiser offers nothing but a future of failure for the GOP. It's time for a return to traditional Republican values and a renewal of integrity and principle. Embracing the failed policies of hate and bigotry of the religious right instead of the principles of individual liberty, small government and economic prosperity is a mistake which the Republican Party cannot afford to make if it wants to have a future. Blackwell should repudiate Benkiser and reaffirm his belief in real Republican values. If not, there are plenty of other good candidates running for RNC chairman.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • Arch Conservative

    Anyone can see that the majority of the popluation is neither far left nor far right. In terms of global politics we are right of center. Even Barry knows this and that’s why he’s trying so hard to reach out to those of us who did not vote for him.

    In George Bush those who voted for him thought they were getting someone who was a true conservative and they got someone who was actually quite liberal on many issues. Maybe time will prove that those who voted for Obama thought they were getting a solid liberal leftist but they will be disappointed as he proves to be more conservative/centrist on many issues than expected.

    In any event it a historic thing indeed that we as a nation have come so far in that we have been able to elect a black man to our highest office. I just hope that we have als come so far that legititmate criticism of his performance will not immediately be labeled “racism.” Who am I kidding. We all know it will be labeled that by some.

    Anyhoo….the RNC and the GOP in selecting it’s chairman and 2012 pres candidate need to select individuals that are intelligient, young, charismatic, and possess the ability to communicate with Americans from all different backgrounds. No small order eh….

    That means it absolutely cannot be anyone from the class of 2008.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Archie, I really have no idea where you’re going with the class of 2008 business, but I do agree that it needs to be someone with a broad appeal. That doesn’t describe any candidate who is catering to the totally discredited religious right. Hell, I’d rather have Karl Rove. At least he’s an amusing little troll.

    Dave

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave – good article, and well said.

    Arch – Bush was ‘quite liberal on many issues’? Um…howzabout letting us liberal-pinko-lotus-eating-commies decide that?

  • Arch Conservative

    By class of 2008 I meant it can’t be Huckabee, Palin, Guiliani or even Romney with his unparallelled economic credentiels who has the personal charisma of a wet dishcloth.

    We need someone younger like Bobby Jindal or the like.

    I’m not from Texas like you but the little I know about Rick Perry I like. I’d vote for him in 2012.

    But I swear if Caribou Barbie, the Wasilla wench is even taken seriously as a candidate in 2012 I may have to abandon the GOP again like I did in this past election.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    If you were from Texas you’d know better than to even think about Rick Perry running for president. As for Jindal, he’s an extremist who would take the party in the wrong direction.

    The right answer is – as it has been – Gov. Mark Sanford of SC.

    Dave

  • Mark Eden

    Talk is that his very first executive order will allow homosexuals to openly serve in the United States Military.

    Crap! And here I was hoping that his first edict would be to ban intraracial marriage.

  • Arch Conservative

    If you were from Texas you’d know better than to even think about Rick Perry running for president.

    Why?

    Ideally who we end up in 2008 should be completely unkown to most Americans now. A dark horse who comes out of nowhere. Sort of like Barry did. Someone who can politick with the best of them.

    I, as a lapsed Republican would love to come back to the fray but it’s going to take someone very capable and very special to get me excited about doing so.

    We have four years to decide who our anti-Barry will be and we better get it right this time.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Arch, Perry is the worst kind of pseudoconservative. All he cares about is using government power to advance the interests of his business cronies and pandering to the religious right. He’s an irresponsible big-government buffoon who has tried to sell the state to the highest bidder – usually someone from France or Spain.

    Dave

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    The day after the Iowa caucus was over, I said to myself, “It’s Obama against McCain”…even though I was an alternate state delegate for Hillary, and continued to support her.

    Since this past summer I’ve said that Jindal will be the next GOP candidate, and I would think his running mate will not Palin – he’s smarter than that – but someone a bit less damaging to the party yet more acceptable to the base.

    BUT as you say, if you can’t find a real game-changer (or, God forbid, something happens to Obama), he’s got a lock on the next election.

    Yes, we once said that about Hillary…but the Republican party is in far worse shape, especially with the changing demographics and Obama’s strength among minorities – which aren’t so ‘minor’ anymore.

    As I said in my post concerning the change in the American psyche, many among minorities (and perhaps most) are truly conservative in their family values (see Prop. 8)…but their PERCEPTION is that the Republicans don’t hear them, don’t like them, and don’t want them around…and stunts like “Barack the Magic Negro” don’t help you at all.

    Personally, I think this is 1980 all over again – but this time the Great Communicator is on our side, and it’s going to take the Republican party a decade or more to remake themselves to make the not-so-minor minorities feel that the Republicans really want them. If the Republicans don’t do this, though, then they will be marginalized and or fragment their support and thus become even weaker…

    …and America might be in danger of becoming a one-party country – and NOBODY (even among Democrats) wants that!

  • Arch Conservative

    BUT as you say, if you can’t find a real game-changer (or, God forbid, something happens to Obama), he’s got a lock on the next election.

    Awfully quick to offer that up aren;’t you Glenn?

    As bad as things are with the economy now they can get worse, a lot worse and while the media will never turn on Obama the people just may.

    Oh and please don’t use such blasphemous language (comparing Obama to Reagan.) I’d like to keep my lunch down.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “please don’t use such blasphemous language (comparing Obama to Reagan.)”

    Yeah, Obama hasn’t started making secret deals with Iran yet.

  • Arch Conservative

    No he’s just making us garuentees that if we somehow treat captured al queda with more dignity it will make us safer.

  • Arch Conservative

    I have a this eerie sensation that living through four years of the Barry administration is going to give me a new appreciation for the Clinton administration.

    I was born during the Carter and so was unable to comprehend first hand all the joy he brought so I have nothing to benchmark the Barry administration against.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    Ah – you’re still a kid! But then, to some here I’m just a kid, too. (A piece of advice – don’t let your opponents know your disadvantages)

    Back in the days when I was a Republican – beginning when I enlisted in the Navy back in ’81 – I loved Reagan (and still do) and thought Carter was crap, too. However, hindsight being 20/20 as it often is, I can see that Carter wasn’t that bad, that more than anything he was screwed over by circumstances (the Iran hostage crisis and the lasting economic effects (read: unemployment) from the Arab Oil Embargo) and by Republican hatred – especially after he decided to HONOR our treaty with Panama to return the Canal to their control…and they’ve done just fine with it, thank you very much.

    You should bear in mind that as of 2007, if the government calculated unemployment as it did during the Carter administration, it would show that America’s unemployment was in double-digits equal to that of the Carter administration…and I think I can safely say that we’ve since surpassed that particular benchmark.

    When it comes to Obama being willing to talk to our enemies, without exception ALL our presidents have done so…until Bush 43. Apparently he – and his bully boys – never understood that diplomacy ALSO means talking to your enemies. Can you imagine what would have happened in WWII if, say, we had refused to deal with the Soviet Union?

    And until Republicans figure out a way to truly bring minorities in the fold (and Jindal’s a start, I admit, but only a baby step in the right direction), I repeat that, unless something happens to Obama, he’s got a lock on the next election.

    btw – back when I was a Hillary delegate, I stated that Obama was the future of the Democratic Party, that he WOULD serve eight years…but I wanted Hillary first because that way we could have sixteen years in power rather than eight. But again, if Republicans don’t figure out a way to really attract minorities, they’re done for.

  • Baronius

    Dave, you and I are very different kinds of conservative when it comes to social issues. So I’ve got a question for you: does the chair/co-chair quota offend you? It strikes me as a perfect example of Republicans trying to have it both ways, making sure that there’s a man and a woman out there arguing for the end of affirmative action.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Good question, bar-bar. Yes, it offends me. Seems stupid, unnecessary and sexist.

    The RLC in Texas had that same provision in its charter and I’m proud to say that I authored and we subsequently passed an amendment to eliminate the rule last year.

    Dave

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Apparently the RNC’s taking a new look at Affirmative Action.

    They understand – as I do – that if they don’t do something to bring more minorities into the fold, they’re in danger of being marginalized.

  • Brunelleschi

    Glenn-

    The racist party lost, now they “get it?”

    If you don’t think that’s funny, you can just get on outa here right now!

  • Brunelleschi

    Dave-

    Why are ALL these kooks GOP?

    You hang out with the wrong crowd.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Apparently the RNC’s taking a new look at Affirmative Action.

    That article doesn’t say anything about the RNC changing its position on affirmative action. Both of the black candidates for RNC chair have come out firmly in opposition to affirmative action. Like a lot of african americans they believe that it is harmful to african americans to promote the idea that they aren’t capable of competing and succeeding on their own merits.

    They understand – as I do – that if they don’t do something to bring more minorities into the fold, they’re in danger of being marginalized.

    Of course we all want to increase minority involvement, but we want to do it by treating them as equals, not by pandering or exploiting them. We’re not going to bribe them or give them special priveleges. We’re going to treat them as equals and hope they find that an appealing alternative to the way they are treated by the Democrats.

    >>The racist party lost, now they “get it?”< <

    The GOP has never been a 'racist' party, and we've always gotten it. Treating minorities as if they are equals and responsible adults is and will continue to be policy.

    Why are ALL these kooks GOP?

    Anyone can say they belong to any party they want to. You can judge whether they are right or not by whether they live up to the name they’ve assumed and the principles of the party.

    Dave

  • Brunelleschi

    Why do ALL these kooks identify themselves with the GOP?

    To paraphrase DH Hughley-“if you have to proclaim that you “Treat minorities as if they are equals and responsible adults,” you as racist as a muthafucka!”

    :)

  • Arch Conservative

    The GOP has never been a ‘racist’ party, and we’ve always gotten it. Treating minorities as if they are equals and responsible adults is and will continue to be policy.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself Nalle.

    Minorities have been voting Democratic for the past forty-five years and where has it got them. They still have many of the same problems today they were facing then. But hey why actually engage in any honest objective scrutiny when you can just blame the evil GOP and vote for more empty promises from the Dem party.

  • Arch Conservative

    To paraphrase DH Hughley-“if you have to proclaim that you “Treat minorities as if they are equals and responsible adults,” you as racist as a muthafucka!”

    If someone were calling you a racist every five seconds you would have no choice but to proclaim the very same thing Bruno. it’s just that you’re not being called a racist every five seconds because the average Republican has more class than the average Democrat who gets down in the dirt and engages in baseless race baiting.

  • zingzing

    archie: “the average Republican has more class than the average Democrat who gets down in the dirt and engages in baseless race baiting.”

    again! hypocrisy! do you not understand this concept?

    “Minorities have been voting Democratic for the past forty-five years and where has it got them.”

    white. house.

    and 45 years ago would be 1964. if you think things haven’t changed for minorities since 1964, you’re sadly mistaken.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    “Minorities have been voting Democratic for the past forty-five years and where has it got them.”

    Into a status as a permanent underclass exploited by the democratic party and forced into dependence on the state.

    white. house.

    And the poor house and too few place inbetween. The Republicans would have put them into the middle class.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Dave, my truck-driver father was able to support our family on one job. And most families around me were like me – ONE BREADWINNER. That was a half century ago when the United States was truly prosperous.

    After 50 to 100 years of mismanagement, HELPED ALONG BY REPUBLICANS SPENDING THE U.S. INTO DEBTOR STATUS, that isn’t so common anymore, is it?

    For most families these days, two breadwinners are required in America.

    Ruvy remembers, Dave….

  • zingzing

    dave, the republicans wouldn’t have done shit. if you think a political party (which seems to have little use for minorities) would have picked them up and plunked them down in the suburbs, you’re stretching.

    first, no political party has that power. it’s up to society. second, the republicans have as much a chance to do right by minorities as the dems do. if they really want the minority vote, it’s out there for the grabbing.

  • Mark Eden

    Dave, in our rambling conversations here you have acknowledged the necessity of a permanent underclass of surplus labor to ensure the smooth functioning of capitalism (and by extension the existence of our Republic). The question for both Democrat and Republican capitalists is, how can these people be maintained with the least impact on maximizing profit and capital accumulation; what is the ‘proper balance’ of public and private ‘giving’ to accomplish this? How one answers pretty much dictates party affiliation imo.

    Except at the level of bullshit, neither party proposes to eliminate the underclass.

    Mark

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle


    For most families these days, two breadwinners are required in America.

    IMO there are a variety of reasons for this which have nothing to do with necessity. Americans like to spend beyond their means. This means either going into debt or expanding their income beyond the single breadwinner model. There’s no question that a single breadwinner earning $45K a year CAN support a family of 4, but people don’t want to make the sacrifices necessary to live at that level of income.

    Dave

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    dave, the republicans wouldn’t have done shit. if you think a political party (which seems to have little use for minorities) would have picked them up and plunked them down in the suburbs, you’re stretching.

    I never claimed that. The Republicans would indeed have done nothing specifically for minorities. But if given the opportunity they would have done more to create an environment supporting upward mobility and opportunity for people at all levels of the economy, treating everyone equally.

    first, no political party has that power. it’s up to society. second, the republicans have as much a chance to do right by minorities as the dems do. if they really want the minority vote, it’s out there for the grabbing.

    Republicans don’t believe in “doing right by minorities.” That phrase is meaningless. They believe in treating everyone equally.

    Dave

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Except at the level of bullshit, neither party proposes to eliminate the underclass.

    I would not eliminate the underclass, but I would hope we would have a fluid underclass where people moved up out of it as they matured and new people moved in to replace them. You want to always have an underclass but you don’t want to have anyone stuck in it permanently.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    dave: “I never claimed that.”

    you said “the republicans would have put them into the middle class.” i know it was a bit of an overstatement, or simplification, but it’s what you said.

    “But if given the opportunity they would have done more to create an environment supporting upward mobility and opportunity for people at all levels of the economy, treating everyone equally.”

    so what happened for the last 8 years? and the 80s? in fact, excepting the early 90’s, you’ve had 24 of the past 28 years of “opportunity,” and what’s come of it?

    “Republicans don’t believe in “doing right by minorities.” That phrase is meaningless. They believe in treating everyone equally.”

    but society doesn’t. and that includes republicans. and if you think ignoring a problem and setting up a system that focuses on making the rich richer–which it does, and which is why we are where we are now–as “treating everyone equally,” well then hurrah gop! you’ve done you’re job well.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    The GOP has never been a ‘racist’ party, and we’ve always gotten it. Treating minorities as if they are equals and responsible adults is and will continue to be policy.

    “Barack the Magic Negro”

    Arch, if minorities felt welcome by the Republican Party, you’d have a lot more minorities. But they don’t feel welcome…and with good reason. You and Dave can deny it all you want, but everyone sees the truth.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Your comments do not answer the question, Dave. People have been spending beyond their means for decades – but if $45K a year is not enough to support a family of four, the question is, why not, or in the alternative, why isn’t the breadwinner able to pull in $55K a year on average or something close to what would support a family of four in comfort?

    The labor market has been structured to create a permanent underclass in America, and all the go-bama bullshit and hope and change (or Republican prescriptions for self help) will not change the fact that you are stuck with a bleeding economy and a series of presidents who really don’t give a damn.

    The standard of living in America has dropped and all the bullshit and piles of economic “statistics” do not change that reality.

    And that standard will continue to drop, as well. You would do well to admit that – both to yourself and everyone else.

    And now, I have to get off for a while. G-d and the vision of the World of Truth call – one day off from the World of Lies and Falsehood.

    Shabbat Shalom

  • Cindy D

    RE #6

    lol

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    so what happened for the last 8 years? and the 80s? in fact, excepting the early 90’s, you’ve had 24 of the past 28 years of “opportunity,” and what’s come of it?

    A dramatic movement of african americans into the middle class, actually.

    Dave

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Your comments do not answer the question, Dave. People have been spending beyond their means for decades – but if $45K a year is not enough to support a family of four, the question is, why not, or in the alternative, why isn’t the breadwinner able to pull in $55K a year on average or something close to what would support a family of four in comfort?

    What I said was that $45K in fact WAS sufficient to support a family of 4 in relative comfort if the money was managed responsibly. But there’s no such thing as too much income, here in the US or anywhere else.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    RE# 29

    Dave,

    For most families these days, two breadwinners are required in America. (Ruvy)

    IMO there are a variety of reasons for this which have nothing to do with necessity. Americans like to spend beyond their means. (Dave)

    My husband’s father managed to support himself, his ill wife and their three children without ever even having a career type job. He worked as a stevedore, an icecream man, a Wall Street tabulator, child photography, sold cutlery, etc.

    Kept an apartment in Jersey City, paid his rent, kept a car, food and clothing, toys, dentist, haircuts, doctor. He could have a game of poker twice a week too.

    That’s 1941-1958.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Good point, Cindy. The good old days are over. Remember, we talked about it a little on an old thread, over John Galbraith.

  • zingzing

    dave: “A dramatic movement of african americans into the middle class, actually.”

    and why would that have happened? are you going to give all the credit to the gop? or are you going to admit that society made the change?

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, this “But if given the opportunity they would have done more to create an environment supporting upward mobility and opportunity for people at all levels of the economy, treating everyone equally” is simply a rubbish argument.

    The Republicans have had ample opportunity to do these things. Your argument is actually the Republicans would do this if they got the votes, when it ought to be the Republicans have done this.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    As usual, I was subjected to Fox News with subtitles at the gym last night, and caught part of Sean Hannity’s interview with Rush Limbaugh (a bit like Pol Pot interviewing Kim Jong-Il). Hannity asked the drugged-up one if the GOP needed to become more moderate in light of the election results. On the contrary, the Rushster exclaimed – Republicans have become too moderate, and it’s time to return to the party’s core values of extremism, fundamentalism and dumping on the disadvantaged. OK, that’s not exactly what he said, but the jist was that the GOP needs to move right, not left.

    As usual, he doesn’t get it. And if his views are reflective of what the GOP leadership decides was the problem, we can look forward to them being out of power for a long time to come. Yay!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    You mean we can’t expect any reasonable dialogue in the near future between the Left and the Right?
    Well, I think Rushster is more concerned about show business than anything else. I suspect he’d just as likely demagogue for the Left if the money was right.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Those on the right who dialog with the left are no longer on the right, according to Limbaugh’s worldview. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, or something.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    I can’t believe I just used the word dialog as a verb. Somebody slap me!

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ Roger Nowosielski

    Great thing about English, more tolerant of innovations than any other language. When in haste, I often find myself having twisted an idiom and feel I could spit myself in the face. But then on second thought, I let it stand because it’s funny.

    If that’s Limbaugh’s true feelings, he’ll soon find himself with a shrinking party, I hope.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    and why would that have happened? are you going to give all the credit to the gop? or are you going to admit that society made the change?

    I think these things were achieved through the efforts of individuals working hard and advancing themselves, taking advantage of opportunities which the relatively pro-opportunity policies of the Republican dominated era allowed them.

    The Republicans have had ample opportunity to do these things. Your argument is actually the Republicans would do this if they got the votes, when it ought to be the Republicans have done this.

    They have done it. They could have done more had they been more responsible when it came to economic policy and had they been more effective in shutting down democrat corruption and excess.

    Dave

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Dave, you can’t have it both ways. If the Republicans have done it as you say above, then your earlier statement “But if given the opportunity they would have done more” can’t be right as well. First you said the Republicans would do something then that they have done it. Typical Nalleism, arguing both ends of a debate!

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Sure I can have it both ways, Chris, because I live in the real world where things are complex, not in your ideal world of black and white.

    Republicans have done what they could, but haven’t been able to do everything they might have wanted to. How hard is that to understand?

    Dave

  • Baronius

    The Democratic Party was racist, but only before the 1860’s…and from the 1860’s to the 1960’s…and since the 1960’s. The Republican Party generally doesn’t care about race. Sure, there are some country-club types who believe in a paternal, patronizing affirmative action, and there are some strategists who look at polling data classified by groups so often that they start to think about people in groups. But most of us don’t care a whit about skin color.

  • Baronius

    Glenn, we’ve been over this. “Barack the Magic Negro” wasn’t racist. It’s a piece that makes fun of the racial politics of Al Sharpton, with the title taken from an LA Times article. The article refers to the movie convention of the “magical negro” who appears out of nowhere and shares his wisdom with the white protagonist. (Think Scatman Crothers in The Shining.) Limbaugh, when he played the piece, said that the left can say these things without consequence, but the right would get butchered for them. So, indirectly, the target of the parody is you.

  • Clavos

    I can’t believe I just used the word dialog as a verb. Somebody slap me!

    Consider yourself slapped. Also, it’s gist. (#42)

    You’re welcome…

  • Arch Conservative

    Glenn, Barak the magic Negro is certainly offensive but let’s not pretend the Dem party doesn’t at times exhibit such ugliness. You have a former KKK grand dragon, Robert Byrd, representing you in Congress and then there’s the fine folks at the Daily cause who are known to refer to Michelle Malkin as a “slanty eyed gook<’ because they don’t share her political views.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Arch and Baronius –

    You just don’t get it, do you? It’s all about PERCEPTION…and the perception of minorities is that Democrats are FAR more likely to look out for their best interests.

    And when it comes to Robert Byrd, he, like Stennis and Eastland, were racist ‘Dixiecrats’…but at least he seems to have reformed. Last I checked, for the past few decades he hasn’t belonged to any whites-only country clubs like one of the candidates for the RNC chair up till last summer…

    …and you should take a cue from that – minorities are willing to forgive those who actually try to reform themselves…but not so eager to trust those who ‘just reformed’ in the past year or so. Nor are they eager to trust those who associate with the sudden ‘reformee’.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Glenn, how exactly is the song “Barack the Magic Negro” racist? I have read the lyrics and while the creator should keep his day job because it’s not terribly funny, I don’t see your point. Are prominent African Americans above being used in parody? If that’s your argument, then it’s you who are the one not treating people equally.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    El Bicho –

    Did you read my previous comment? If you did, perhaps you didn’t understand it. It’s all about PERCEPTION. It DOES NOT MATTER how non-racist the song may or may not be…all that is necessary for the American public (and particularly the African-American public) to hear is “A candidate for the RNC is promoting a song named, ‘Barack the Magic Negro’!” And that’s it. The Republican Party is once more convicted in the court of public opinion. Right or wrong doesn’t matter. Public perception is what matters.

    As another example, I can use the ‘n-word’ in a sentence without using it in a racist way…but if I do so, the public perception will almost certainly be that I am racist.

    Maybe y’all should learn that lesson – that’s political reality, and as much as you may hate it, it’s not going to change. Adapt…or be marginalized.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    Do you think this song was the first time African Americans have heard that term? My perception is you don’t know what you are talking about in this instance, and since that’s all that matters, according to you, I am right.

  • Cindy D

    Adapt…or be marginalized.

    The mantra of the dominant culture.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    El Bicho –

    Do you think this song was the first time African Americans have heard that term? My perception is you don’t know what you are talking about in this instance, and since that’s all that matters, according to you, I am right.

    Hm. According to you, since African-Americans have heard the word ‘negro’ before, they shouldn’t think it’s racist when used as the title of a song parodying a black man?

    Gee, I must be missing something here, as in “if the song is NOT racist in any way, then WHY is the word ‘negro’ necessary in the title? If the song is NOT racist in any way, then WHY does the word ‘negro’ need to be in the song at all?”

    But you and the rest of the conservatives who want to ignore political reality go on ahead and play now, and leave government to the adults among the Dems who DO have a clue about political reality.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy – I can’t argue with your statement. For good or ill, that’s a true statement.

  • Brunelleschi

    I just scanned this page and I have never seen so many bland rightie slogans and excuses in one place.

    To paraphrase-

    ‘The blacks did it to themselves.’
    ‘The racists are not racists.’
    ‘People without money should vote like the rich because they will be better off.”
    ‘Racist songs are not racist.’
    ‘It now takes 2 people working full-time to make ends meet, when back in the day it used to only take one, but that is the worker’s fault.’

    Archie Bunker is posting here I guess.

  • Baronius

    Glenn, there is a valid question about the public perception of the Republican Party. If that’s why you keep citing “Barack the Magic Negro”, that’s fine. But as near as I can tell, you keep raising it as if it’s proof of the reality of Republican racism, not the perception. So the question goes to you: do you think that the song is racist?

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Spare me the “perception is everything” argument. If perception is wrong, then people should all work together to change it.

    As for the “Magic Negro” business, it’s an established academic theme. People write their dissertations about it and they don’t get called racist. It’s not insulting to blacks, it’s a criticism of a film industry convention which isn’t racist so much as it’s just lazy and manipulative. When it’s used the negro in question is almost always an unnaturally good and admirable character.

    It’s application to Obama makes perfect sense in the context of satire, because he is perceived as coming in to pull us out of the darkness the way that Will Smith does in The Legend of Bagger Vance or Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty.

    Dave

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Bruni, #61 has firmly convinced me that you’re either not paying attention or just deliberately misunderstanding stuff to irritate people.

    Dave

  • Doug Hunter

    Yes, the race propaganda of the left has done it’s job. The whole class warfare thing never could catch hold here so they had to find another way to divide us.. race. The double standard that has been placed upon us; where whites must rarely mention race except to apologize and every display of pride is considered racist yet minorities can act proud and have marches and openly offer black only this or hispanic only that and vote 90+% on skin color with no one daring to speak a word has taken it’s toll.

    The light at the end of the tunnel is that as minorities become the majority they will think more like the majority as well. Now that they have the presidency perhaps the old victim-oppressor model that has worked so powerfully with them will lose a bit of it’s power.

    I think it will be some time, a decade or two at least, before the right can come back but when they do they’ll be multicolored and more powerful than ever. I can only hope in the meantime we don’t sell out our principles to buy a few temporary minority votes.

  • Brunelleschi

    Dave-

    Not at all. I just know when to call BS BS.

    There are times when the best thing whitey can do is just STFU.

  • Clavos

    Public perception is what matters.

    Unfortunately, most of the public in this country are dim-witted, TV-addicted couch potato louts.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “Gee, I must be missing something here”

    That’s very apparent from your comments, like when you had to admit your error over your statements regarding Pope JP2.

    “WHY is the word ‘negro’ necessary in the title?”

    Because the name of the literary device is “magic” or “magical negro.” To quote D. Marvin Jones in his book Race, Sex, and Suspicion: The Myth of the Black Male, “the word negro, now considered by many as archaic and offensive, is used intentionally to suggest that the archetype is a racist throwback.”

    That’s why it is necessary. It’s obvious you don’t know what you are talking about because the song is actually making fun of white liberals. The Internet has a lot of resources to educate yourself. Feel free to use them once in a while or continue to get egg on your face.

    Brune, point out how the song is racist or continue to demonstrate your ignorance on the matter. If your basis is solely the use of the word “negro,” then using your “logic” the United Negro College Fund is a racist organization.

  • http://www.fontcraft.com/rod/ Dave Nalle

    Just to help this argument along, I found the song on youtube. It appears to primarily be a parody of Al Sharpton and his political ambitions.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    so wait… is it about white liberals or black politicians?

  • zingzing

    i’m glad you guys are clearing this up. i thought it was about barack obama. silly me. clever conservative songsmith.

  • Brunelleschi

    Its not an argument cliche-Dave.

    Its some people who can’t believe this is still going on, and some people trying to make excuses for bigotry.

  • Cindy D

    Well one thing good about your video Dave, it led me to find this video. Now, that is something to think about.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    El Bicho –

    Did you pay attention to what YOU wrote?

    “the word negro, now considered by many as archaic and offensive, is used intentionally to suggest that the archetype is a racist throwback.”

    now considered by many as archaic and offensive“…just like the ‘n-word’.

    If you use what is seen as a racist word as the title of a song, an article, or a movie, it does not matter that the song/article/movie is NOT racist at all. What DOES matter is that the word was used.

    By his post showing his frustration with the public being ‘couch potatoes’, Clavos understands this at least to some extent. YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE POLITICAL REALITY OF THE TIME.

    Look at it another way. You and I and even Arch-Con knows there’s nothing wrong with mixed-race marraiges…but to publicly bring that up a century ago would have branded you as a “‘n-word’-lover”, and you would have been considered politically dead for all practical purposes.

    Now things have changed. If you do what is not politically acceptable (and I hate that phrase too), then it will only hurt YOU…and if you are so unwise as to CONTINUE to do so (as some of the Republican elite have done), it reflects poorly on those around you.

    C’mon, El Bicho – this is common sense…and it truly IS ‘common’ sense because of how America reacted FOR the Democrats as a whole and AGAINST the Republicans as a whole.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Glenn sez: “YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE POLITICAL REALITY OF THE TIME.”

    Ah, but there’s the little matter of HOW you have to deal with “political reality.” You appear to be saying that we all should expect to jump through the PC hoops because it is “the political reality of the time.”

    But if that political reality is stupid and a constriction against free thinking, then perhaps the appropriate way of dealing with that reality is protest and defiance.

    Or do you perhaps think that the appropriate response to opponents of the Iraq war should have been to just shut up and go along with the political reality of the time?

  • Cindy D

    What Al said.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Thank you Miss Cindy.

  • Cindy D

    YW Al :-)

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    As with Cindy, well said Al! You see, unlike most here, when the one on the other side of the argument makes a good point, I give him kudos for it. That’s the right thing to do.

    BE THAT AS IT MAY, look at my post where I pointed out what Clavos said: “By his post showing his frustration with the public being ‘couch potatoes’, Clavos understands this at least to some extent”.

    Did I DISAGREE with Clavos? Not at all. Clavos UNDERSTOOD what I meant – and he UNDERSTANDS how ‘PC thinking’ can be wrong. Neither you nor Clavos nor Cindy nor I believe that “political correctness” is a good thing.

    All I’m trying to beat into that almost-as-thick-as-mine skull of yours is that in any given political era there are things that, if publicly done, cause serious injury to one’s political standing.

    It’s not a matter of right or wrong – it’s a matter of how one’s actions affect the emotions of others. It’s not-so-simple human psychology.

    And as I keep saying – and as Cindy rightly pointed out, it’s the mantra of the dominant in any culture – “adapt or be marginalized”.

  • Cindy D

    Did I mention how non-adaptive I think adapting to a monolithic culture is? I mean it’s not good for any culture/species. Is it?

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Look at it like evolution. Some mutations work and change the whole species. Some don’t, and fall to the wayside.

    With human society, it’s up to the individual to decide whether the change in society that he or she wants is worth the risk. MLK thought it was worth it, and became an icon. Same goes for Hitler – just in a different direction.

    And once more I refer you to that serenity prayer.

    Cindy, please understand that I’m not trying to tell anyone not to be different from the herd. All I’m trying to say is to be wise about which way one chooses to be different.

  • Cindy D

    Glenn,

    I love the serenity prayer. As far as prayers go, I think it’s the tops.

    I have a different course now though. Here is a quote from someone whose ideas (some of them) I admire:

    “To continue living in luxury and prosperity, with the horrors of poverty and the outbursts of cruelty all around, means to know that you are participating in evil and deceit.”

    I won’t throw out my TV just yet. I still like fillet mignon. But, I will aim to change things. And try to simplify life.

    MLK is one of the people I respect a lot. (religious people, per se, aren’t on my x-list)

    Still, the serenity prayer is not useful to me at the moment. Tolstoy, up there at the quote was a religious person and very wealthy before he gave it all up to live as a peasant. I’ll never do what he did. But, I can at least not be serene.

  • Cindy D

    …please understand that I’m not trying to tell anyone not to be different from the herd. All I’m trying to say is to be wise about which way one chooses to be different.

    I see that Glenn. Along with a willing capacity to learn and grow.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    Tolstoy is right…and wrong.

    Jesus said “The poor you will have with you always.” As much as I’d like to believe otherwise, no matter how hard we strive, no matter how much we protest and expose the hypocrisy of the money’d elite, no matter how much we give…the poor will always be with us.

    There are people whose personalities and mental tendencies will leave them in poverty – the paths may be wildly different, but there will ALWAYS be those in poverty.

    So what’s the solution – ignore the poverty? Certainly NOT!

    I’ve got two brothers-in-law who live in honest-to-goodness squalor in a third-world country. It breaks my wife’s heart – and mine – to see them in such a situation. But she will not help them further, not for now. We’ve tried before, first by giving them money, then by giving them the tools they need to make money…but nothing works. They will remain as they are. My mother-in-law continues to give them money to eat, never realizing (though we’ve told her) that always giving them money is like trying to cure an alcoholic by giving him just one more beer. It’s only enabling them.

    They think we’re inconsiderate, that we’re refusing to help them – but nothing could be further from the truth. There’s two reasons.

    One – if we spend more money now to try to help them out (beyond having food to eat), we’re throwing good money after bad, and hurting ourselves in the process (we blew maybe 20K, maybe more). After all, just as on an airplane you’re trained to put YOUR oxygen mask on first before you put your child’s mask on, you must make sure your own livelihood is in good health, that YOU are able to remain in good health – physically and financially – so that you are better able to help in the long run.

    Two – I once read how a powerful man was complaining how lazy the Greeks were. His companion replied that yes, the Greeks are indeed lazy – in Greece. He then pointed out that the Greeks he had working on his ships were the hardest-working, the best workers he had.

    In other words, while you and I know that many poor people are there because circumstances have trapped them there, many are also there because they are in a comfort zone. They have a roof over their head and usually have food to eat…so why worry about anything more? Get them out of their comfort zone, though, and watch them fly!

    Hopefully in the next two years we’ll be able to bring those two brothers-in-law (and their children) to America, and then they’ll get the chance to prove to themselves how lazy they are NOT. I’ve seen it so many times….

    To summarize, Cindy – you CAN have your cake and eat it too. It is not right to sacrifice your own happiness – and by extension, possibly even that of your children – because others are struggling to survive. I’m not saying to live extravagantly, but you can accomplish more for them if you yourself are happy, healthy, and not trapped in poverty.

    And NO, I’m not plugging for conservative thinking here – you well know how much I support big increases in social programs (and the increased taxes that surely follow), for universal health care, to give a leg up to those in poverty. What I’ve state above are choices based on personal observation and experience, and should NEVER become political policy.

  • Cindy D

    Glenn,

    On not being trapped in poverty–I agree. I don’t have children only a niece and nephew.

    There are ways we have not tried Glenn. I’m sure Im at a loss at the moment to explain them. My explanations nee perfecting. They hardly inspire Communists.

  • Cindy D

    something about me and “d”s seem not to connect.

  • Baronius

    Glenn, you failed to answer my question: perception of racism aside, do you think that “Barack the Magic Negro” is racist?