Fresh. Bold. Uh-Huh…
11 Responses to Fresh. Bold. Uh-Huh…
-
cw says:
For instance:
“Better the party of old white men than the party of the fat and uglies.
11/14/12 4:04 PM” -
MikeS says:
Another helpful commenter to Sailer’s article suggested this campaign strategy: “[the next Republican Presidential candidate] should spill the beans on Jewish privilege, gay privilege, Asian privilege, feminist scam…” Yes, that would certainly help the GOP win more Obama voters. It’s fun watching these people respond to the reality that hit them last Tuesday.
-
Hunsdon says:
cw said: And he attracts a majority of hard core conservative ___holes.
Hunsdon replied: You rang, sir?
-
Gerard says:
I think the GOP needs to take advantage of the label that has become almost a slur (can you imagine singling out any other group in a pejorative way?). Their new slogan should be:
“The Republican Party: From the guys who brought you Western Civilization and all that the world desires”
-
CDK says:
People put too much stock in elections. I remember when John Kerry lost in 2004, and all the talk then from the Left was how the country was going to hell and it was time to move to Sweden or some equivalent thereto. Still others within the Democratic party spoke about the need to move to the Right if they were to remain viable electorally, etc. Romney lost the popular vote by a bare few percentage points and was, in fact, an unlikable candidate whom his own party was loath to accept (contrast this with the near-wholehearted embrace of Obama by the Democrats, despite his Bush-like policies). Republicans have never been a party interested in “rolling back the clock” on social issues, though they very much like standing pat with what we’ve got and keeping it from going any further. (For those who doubt this, see “Abortion–republican efforts” in the Encyclopedia of Political Mythology.)
Immigration isn’t something you can just fudge on–essentially the Wall St./Washington establishment is tired of its people and is electing a new one. Ask Mexico how open its borders are to the Guatamalans, or really any country–we and Europe seem to be the only racists in the world, yet we have more open borders than practically anyone else. Of course, everybody knows that the business community is behind the non-enforcement of immigration laws as much or more than the racial identity constituencies, and for the usual reason: they can pay immigrants far less and don’t worry nearly as much about labor laws and unionization. I don’t hate immigrants, illegal or otherwise, and I sympathize with anybody trying to escape the hellhole third world. But you cannot compare me, whose family has lived in this country for over two centuries, with someone who snuck over the border five or even ten or fifteen years ago. They can be deported back to their home country where their relatives and contacts and customs still hold sway, while I can’t be deported back to Scotland or Ireland because, though my ancestors came from there, I’m not in any plausible sense Scottish or Irish, and I know no one. In other words, I can’t leave because I have nowhere else to go, and they can (and do). In fact, one reason Mexico in particular is in such bad shape is that anybody with brains who wants a better life comes over here, rather than fighting the narco-state criminals at home. Better for them as individuals, but not for either nation as a whole.
-
Hunsdon. Bring me my firearm, a box of amunition, and whiskey sour. Chop chop. Our way of life needs defending.
-
Bryan says:
A quote from one of the talking heads (who appears to be a black lady) “Win over blacks via the military.”
Didn’t we try that back around 1860?
-
DavidT says:
CDK–maybe people do put too much stock in elections, if you’re talking about an individual election. But the GOP has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. I’d say that’s a sign that *something* is going wrong for them. (Compare with 1968-1988 where they won the popular and electoral vote five times out of six.)
-
stef says:
I liked the comment which basically said, Run someone in 2016 who’s fated to lose, but have them belch forth the most outrageous anti-women, anti-minority, anti-gay screeds they can find. Then they can sit back and enjoy their righteous purity.
That could be scheduled right about the time TX goes electorally blue.
Why? Because in this week or so following the election, GOP spokesmen have gone out of their way to create even more digitally-archivable copy about those lazy moochers and takers, which can all be resurrected for the 2014 and 2016 elections.
-
Bob Jones says:
Bryan,
In the 19th century the Republican party was the party of the black vote (at least when the southern democrats let them vote that is).
The change really started in the 1930′s and then was pretty much complete after the Civil Rights and Great Society Reforms of the 1960′s and 70′s.
Politically speaking, nothing in America is permanent, and the political parties that best understand and respond to the changes, are those that become dominant for periods of time. Thus, while the GOP was ascendant in the 80′s, the Dems seem to be more ascendant now, but that could change, depending on the GOPs ability to addressed the changed situation we are in.
It’s really interesting to read the comment sections of different bloggers. I think the best way to judge bloggers is by their comments. They put their mojo out their and then it get’s responded to.
Rod is a cranky conservative with a good heart and gets a huge variety of comments from all over the political spectrum. Steve is…. Steve. And he attracts a majority of hard core conservative ___holes. Even though Steve is actually a very intelligent guy with a lot of really valuable insights.