US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE

[Phoenix Dark]

Did you guys know John Edwards cheated on his terminally ill wife, fathered a bastard, and had a staffer attempt to cover it all up? Just figured I'd bring that up every time Edwards is mentioned.

I'm not going to defend Cheney either. I'm glad he supports gay rights but it's worth noting he did nothing about it. I can understand him not wanting to undercut the president if he wasn't undercutting him all the time, which we know in hindsight.

[benjipwns]

Maybe I'm remembering wrong but I don't recall it as even part of Edwards arguing in favor of gay marriage or rights. It was more like he just kept dropping it in to get it out there. I'll look it up.

EDIT:

IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds.

EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq.

Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not.

We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us.

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry.

I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships.

But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country.

No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage.

This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong.

IFILL: New question, but same subject.

As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it.

Are you trying to have it both ways?

EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along.

We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits.

For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that.

But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment.

I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary.

Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage.

Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about.

There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on.

We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter.

I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

I'll rule in favor of myself and say it's because Edwards babbled for over two minutes and kept repeating that he and Kerry were against gay marriage, but he did get some stuff in there about constitutional amendments so that was entirely my fault and I was entirely wrong about the exchange. I fully rescind and apologize for calling it "despicable" to bring it up the way he did.

[Mandark]

benji: I just remember an absolute torrent of faux outrage and demands that Edwards apologize and Can You Believe That He Would Drag A Man's Family Into This...  I've tried but I just can't make myself give a fuck.

[Phoenix Dark]

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Republican minority outreach exploded into controversy on Friday afternoon, after an audience member defended slavery as good for African-Americans.

The exchange occurred after an audience member from North Carolina, 30-year-old Scott Terry, asked whether Republicans could endorse races remaining separate but equal. After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, the audience member said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

After the exchange, Terry muttered under his breath, “why can’t we just have segregation?” noting the Constitution’s protections for freedom of association. Watch it:

ThinkProgress spoke with Terry, who sported a Rick Santorum sticker and attended CPAC with a friend who wore a Confederate Flag-emblazoned t-shirt, about his views after the panel. Terry maintained that white people have been “systematically disenfranchised” by federal legislation.

When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.

At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

He claimed to be a direct descendent of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
The panel continued to be racked in controversy, as an African-American audience member repeatedly challenged the racism on display at this event. CPAC is the marquee conservative conference of year, with speakers ranging from former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to Senator Marco Rubio.

We have reached a level of Poe's Law I didn't know existed

[Joe Molotov]

“I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

:ooh

[Great Rumbler]

And this happened earlier in the day:

[Great Rumbler]

More stuff from that event:

Brown, who took offense at the suggestion modern Democrats were descendants of the KKK, tried to ask a question later once things finally calmed down. She was booed and screamed at by audience members.

“Let someone else speak!” one attendee in Revolutionary War garb shouted.

“You’re not welcome!” a white-haired older woman yelled.

Eventually she asked a question. It was about whether Republicans should call out racist ads.

Attendees interviewed by TPM afterwards expressed outrage at the way the event turned out. Not at Terry and Heimbach — they were mad at Brown for her interruptions.

Chad Chapman, 21, one of the few black attendees, said overall he enjoyed the event — except “there were lots of interruptions, mainly because of the woman.”

I asked whether he was concerned about the question from Terry and Heimbach.

“No they were just telling the truth,” he said. You mean you agree blacks are systematically disenfranchising whites, I asked?

“I listen to anybody’s point of view, it doesn’t really matter,” he said.

Seconds after the event ended, a media scrum formed around Terry. A woman wearing a Tea Party Patriots CPAC credential who had shouted down Brown earlier urged him not to give his name to the press.

She wouldn’t give her name either, but I asked her what she thought.

“Look, you know there’s no doubt the white males are getting really beat up right now, it’s unfair,” she said. “I agree with that. My husband’s one of them. But I don’t think there’s a clear understanding about what really is going on. He needs to read Frederick Douglass and I think that question should be asked to everyone in this room who is debating.”

Another white participant, Jeremy Kohn, got into a respectful discussion with Brown afterwards about the history of slavery and whether the party had a race problem. Brown explained why, after attending several CPACs, she had felt compelled to raise the issue that day.

“I just felt honestly black Americans have a lot in common with conservatives, the problem is your language and the way you — not you as an individual, you as a movement — the way racist language is overlooked,” she said.

I asked Kohn whether he was concerned, after talking to Brown, about the language used by Terry and Heimbach.

“Concerned in what way?” he said. I explained I meant the part about how whites were being disenfranchised by blacks en masse and the Confederacy wasn’t being respected.

“I would just say that if you cast a fraudulent vote you are depriving someone else of the right to vote, because you are canceling a vote that was legitimately cast,” he said. I pressed again — even leaving the voting issue aside, was it right to say white culture was being denigrated as Terry had?

“I’m not going to make a general statement about that, but obviously whatever culture you come from there’s somebody who is opposed to it,” he said.

Later after asking if he would be quoted, he requested I add the following statement: “90 percent of blacks vote for Democrats regularly.”

He paused.
“It’s hard to talk about without offending people.”

[Mandark]

  benji


Oh, and I remember you wondering a while back why black voters didn't threaten to defect to the GOP in order to get more leverage within the Democratic party?  I think this pretty much sums it up.

[benjipwns]

I don't know if CPAC has always been this way and it just wasn't reported on. But it has been going down an interesting path the last couple years, banning all the gay groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, altering their voting system because Ron Paul kept winning the straw polls, suppressing some groups while turning a blind eye to others in weird patterns in regards to credentials and stuff, etc.

Oh, and I remember you wondering a while back why black voters didn't threaten to defect to the GOP in order to get more leverage within the Democratic party?  I think this pretty much sums it up.

Not necessarily to the GOP but I do understand it's the only "viable" alternative sadly. I just have concerns about any cleavage voting 90% or more consistently as I feel it's effectively eliminated actual representation within both parties. (And I think it's contributed to the corrupt political machines in cities that do more to harm their people than anything.) I don't know why the GOP doesn't do more outreach like that Bush Urban League speech instead you get McCain and Romney not even really bothering to address the community, it makes it far harder to seem like you aren't encouraging these openly racist views (or nativist or bigoted or) or at the least finding them relevant. (And I don't think McCain, Romney and the like are anymore directly racist than the average major party pol.)

I think there could be some value in "invading" moribund local Republican parties to wield outsized influence and avoid having to fight through entrenched Democratic machines. Like Bloomberg going Republican to avoid a primary, etc. Then that could show the state and national parties there are reason to not ignore them and put in some effort. I realize that's incredibly optimistic, "invasions" of national parties never work and sustaining local efforts are fraught with difficulties. Especially since they'll be losing general elections initially.

Libertarian circles are always plastered in debates about "we should join the GOP and work within the system like the Goldwaterites" vs. "the GOP opposes civil liberties and are religious we should join the Dems!" vs. "we should have our own pure major Libertarian Party we just need [Ron Paul/Gary Johnson/Harry Browne/Jesse Ventura/Bob Barr] for President!" vs. "ignore them all they'll come to us!" vs. "you should just vote GOP always because anything that slows down the Dems is good" vs. "voting is a scam!" vs. "Real libertarians support the American Third Position Party!" vs. "we should form issue based ad-hoc alliances!" so maybe I just come to it from that perspective, and unlike libertarians, black people are actually numerous enough to be more politically relevant than they seem to be. (I'm mostly in that last ad-hoc camp. Though I'm sure the A3P produces a quality newsletter, especially the Kevin MacDonald articles.)

tl;dr: I have concerns about the two parties bases becoming cemented ultra majority blocs, especially along ethnic or racial lines. I consider it to probably actually reduce representation and to increase extremism. Probably will encourage violence. I have no actual solutions.

Of course, I don't understand why the War on Drugs is such a non-issue in American politics, so I'm most likely just naive. Probably what all my political science colleagues think when I don't care about their MODERN SOCIAL POLICY IMPERATIVES fetish (FAT TAXES EXERCISE SUBSIDIES fapfapfapfapfap) considering all the mostly young minority males we're forcing into black markets, imprisoning and killing. (Not to mention what it's done to our police.)

Or they think that I'm just a stoner.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I was talking to a urban studies/urban policy guy about some thing he had on impact of single mothers and I asked him how much he thought the war on drugs contributed to the illegitimacy/single mothers "problem" and he just rambled off like "yes, yes, that's why we need increased housing loans, more greenspaces and enterprise zones, expanded job training, after school and childcare programs and an sustainable minimum wage to restore the inner cities." I was depressed for like a week. 

[close]

[Phoenix Dark]

Nearly every story out of CPAC so far could be titled "Why Republicans Keep Losing Elections"

[benjipwns]

This is from a couple years ago: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47231.html

Friction between parts of the social conservative and libertarian wings of the conservative movement has escalated into a shooting war in the run-up to the Conservative Political Action Conference, with accusations of embezzlement (true), homosexuality (true), and creeping sharia (disputed) hurled against the 38-year old conservative institution.

CPAC’s leaders respond that its foes’ real gripe is that it won’t give a platform to their lunatic conspiracy theories about presidential birth certificates (disputed).

But however esoteric the disputes, the fracas has led to real-world repercussions: a move by a group of conservative figures to begin organizing a move to turn the Value Voter Summit, a newer annual event planned for October, into a full-fledged rival to CPAC by shifting its focus toward economic and security issues, according to two participants in the developing strategy. Two of the heavyweight groups of the broader right, the Heritage Foundation and the Media Research Center, have dropped out of CPAC and are expected, planners said, to add to the Value Voter Summit’s heft.

The gripes with Keene and Norquist are numerous. Keene does work for corporate clients, and many conservatives were particularly unhappy with a leaked proposal to do work on behalf of FedEx in a regulatory fight with UPS. The parts of the right focused on fears of infiltration of America by radical Muslims object to Norquist’s efforts to bring Muslims into the Republican Party, and speak often – on background – of his Palestinian wife.

By Keene’s telling, the dispute is of fresher vintage. Last fall, Joseph Farah, the publisher of WorldNetDaily, which blends conservative news, UFO theorizing and a focus on President Barack Obama’s birth certificate, emailed one of Keene’s deputies to suggest a panel on the birth certificate. The ACU, which runs CPAC, rebuffed him, and he’s held a grudge ever since, Keene contends.

More debatable, in any event, was the allegation, aired this earlier week on WorldNetDaily, that CPAC has “come under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is working to bring America under Saudi-style Shariah law,” in the person of a former Bush administration official, Suhail Khan, who sits on ACU's board.

“The idea that ‘homosexual activists’ are working with ‘Muslim terrorists’ to infiltrate CPAC and subvert the conservative movement is beyond bizarre. I assume the end game is to install the gay Sharia agenda?” said the chairman of GOProud, Chris Barron. “It’s hard to tell the difference between his website – World Net Daily – and the Onion these days.

Keene was ousted from ACU in 2011. Heritage, MRC and Family Research Council are back as sponsors. So based on that and the recent stories I guess we know who won that fight.

[Phoenix Dark]

Gays and Muslims working together to overtake the republican party  :ehh

Obama has really made the GOP go insane. It's pretty impressive.

[benjipwns]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/nsl-found-unconstitutional/

Ultra-secret national security letters that come with a gag order on the recipient are an unconstitutional impingement on free speech, a federal judge in California ruled in a decision released Friday.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered the government to stop issuing so-called NSLs across the board, in a stunning defeat for the Obama administration’s surveillance practices. She also ordered the government to cease enforcing the gag provision in any other cases. However, she stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We are very pleased that the Court recognized the fatal constitutional shortcomings of the NSL statute,” said Matt Zimmerman, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed a challenge to NSLs on behalf of an unknown telecom that received an NSL in 2011. “The government’s gags have truncated the public debate on these controversial surveillance tools. Our client looks forward to the day when it can publicly discuss its experience.”

The telecommunications company received the ultra-secret demand letter in 2011 from the FBI seeking information about a customer or customers. The company took the extraordinary and rare step of challenging the underlying authority of the National Security Letter, as well as the legitimacy of the gag order that came with it.

Both challenges are allowed under a federal law that governs NSLs, a power greatly expanded under the Patriot Act that allows the government to get detailed information on Americans’ finances and communications without oversight from a judge. The FBI has issued hundreds of thousands of NSLs over the years and has been reprimanded for abusing them — though almost none of the requests have been challenged by the recipients.

After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority.

EFF filed a challenge on behalf of the telecom (.pdf) in May that year on First Amendment grounds, asserting first that the gag order amounted to unconstitutional prior restraint and, second, that the NSL statute itself “violates the anonymous speech and associational rights of Americans” by forcing companies to hand over data about their customers.

Instead of responding directly to that challenge and filing a motion to compel compliance in the way the Justice Department has responded to past challenges, government attorneys instead filed a lawsuit against the telecom, arguing that by refusing to comply with the NSL and hand over the information it was requesting, the telecom was violating the law, since it was “interfer[ing] with the United States’ vindication of its sovereign interests in law enforcement, counterintelligence, and protecting national security.”

They did this, even though courts have allowed recipients who challenge an NSL to withhold government-requested data until the court compels them to hand it over. The Justice Department argued in its lawsuit that recipients cannot use their legal right to challenge an individual NSL to contest the fundamental NSL law itself.

[Phoenix Dark]

Meanwhile on Fox
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/fox-news-ponders-flotus-becoming-vpotus-which-would-make-oba

[Great Rumbler]

Meanwhile on Fox
http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/fox-news-ponders-flotus-becoming-vpotus-which-would-make-oba

[Great Rumbler]

Well, this popped up today:

In late October 1968 there were major concessions from Hanoi which promised to allow meaningful talks to get underway in Paris - concessions that would justify Johnson calling for a complete bombing halt of North Vietnam. This was exactly what Nixon feared.

Chennault was despatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal.

So on the eve of his planned announcement of a halt to the bombing, Johnson learned the South Vietnamese were pulling out.

He was also told why. The FBI had bugged the ambassador's phone and a transcripts of Anna Chennault's calls were sent to the White House. In one conversation she tells the ambassador to "just hang on through election".

Johnson was told by Defence Secretary Clifford that the interference was illegal and threatened the chance for peace.

In a series of remarkable White House recordings we can hear Johnson's reaction to the news.

In one call to Senator Richard Russell he says: "We have found that our friend, the Republican nominee, our California friend, has been playing on the outskirts with our enemies and our friends both, he has been doing it through rather subterranean sources. Mrs Chennault is warning the South Vietnamese not to get pulled into this Johnson move."

He orders the Nixon campaign to be placed under FBI surveillance and demands to know if Nixon is personally involved.

When he became convinced it was being orchestrated by the Republican candidate, the president called Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader in the Senate to get a message to Nixon.

The president knew what was going on, Nixon should back off and the subterfuge amounted to treason.

Publicly Nixon was suggesting he had no idea why the South Vietnamese withdrew from the talks. He even offered to travel to Saigon to get them back to the negotiating table.

Johnson felt it was the ultimate expression of political hypocrisy but in calls recorded with Clifford they express the fear that going public would require revealing the FBI were bugging the ambassador's phone and the National Security Agency (NSA) was intercepting his communications with Saigon.

So they decided to say nothing.

The president did let Humphrey know and gave him enough information to sink his opponent. But by then, a few days from the election, Humphrey had been told he had closed the gap with Nixon and would win the presidency. So Humphrey decided it would be too disruptive to the country to accuse the Republicans of treason, if the Democrats were going to win anyway.

Nixon ended his campaign by suggesting the administration war policy was in shambles. They couldn't even get the South Vietnamese to the negotiating table.

He won by less than 1% of the popular vote.

Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968.

[Dickie Dee]

FFFFFFUUUUUU

[TakingBackSunday]

what a fucking cunt

[Joe Molotov]

It's almost like Nixon wasn't a very nice person.  :wtf2

[Steve Contra]

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Republican minority outreach exploded into controversy on Friday afternoon, after an audience member defended slavery as good for African-Americans.

The exchange occurred after an audience member from North Carolina, 30-year-old Scott Terry, asked whether Republicans could endorse races remaining separate but equal. After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, the audience member said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

After the exchange, Terry muttered under his breath, “why can’t we just have segregation?” noting the Constitution’s protections for freedom of association. Watch it:

ThinkProgress spoke with Terry, who sported a Rick Santorum sticker and attended CPAC with a friend who wore a Confederate Flag-emblazoned t-shirt, about his views after the panel. Terry maintained that white people have been “systematically disenfranchised” by federal legislation.

When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.

At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

He claimed to be a direct descendent of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.
The panel continued to be racked in controversy, as an African-American audience member repeatedly challenged the racism on display at this event. CPAC is the marquee conservative conference of year, with speakers ranging from former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to Senator Marco Rubio.

We have reached a level of Poe's Law I didn't know existed

Remember when certain commenters on the right suggested that blacks would switch to the Republican party because of gay marriage?  Good times.

[Phoenix Dark]

That Nixon story is insane, wow. I'd imagine many people in Washington have known about it for awhile, too

[Dickie Dee]

Can we dig him up and kick him around some more

[brawndolicious]

I thought it was fairly well known that Nixon sabotaged the Johnson administration's peace talks?

[Mandark]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I don't know if CPAC has always been this way and it just wasn't reported on. But it has been going down an interesting path the last couple years, banning all the gay groups like the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud, altering their voting system because Ron Paul kept winning the straw polls, suppressing some groups while turning a blind eye to others in weird patterns in regards to credentials and stuff, etc.

Oh, and I remember you wondering a while back why black voters didn't threaten to defect to the GOP in order to get more leverage within the Democratic party?  I think this pretty much sums it up.

Not necessarily to the GOP but I do understand it's the only "viable" alternative sadly. I just have concerns about any cleavage voting 90% or more consistently as I feel it's effectively eliminated actual representation within both parties. (And I think it's contributed to the corrupt political machines in cities that do more to harm their people than anything.) I don't know why the GOP doesn't do more outreach like that Bush Urban League speech instead you get McCain and Romney not even really bothering to address the community, it makes it far harder to seem like you aren't encouraging these openly racist views (or nativist or bigoted or) or at the least finding them relevant. (And I don't think McCain, Romney and the like are anymore directly racist than the average major party pol.)

I think there could be some value in "invading" moribund local Republican parties to wield outsized influence and avoid having to fight through entrenched Democratic machines. Like Bloomberg going Republican to avoid a primary, etc. Then that could show the state and national parties there are reason to not ignore them and put in some effort. I realize that's incredibly optimistic, "invasions" of national parties never work and sustaining local efforts are fraught with difficulties. Especially since they'll be losing general elections initially.

Libertarian circles are always plastered in debates about "we should join the GOP and work within the system like the Goldwaterites" vs. "the GOP opposes civil liberties and are religious we should join the Dems!" vs. "we should have our own pure major Libertarian Party we just need [Ron Paul/Gary Johnson/Harry Browne/Jesse Ventura/Bob Barr] for President!" vs. "ignore them all they'll come to us!" vs. "you should just vote GOP always because anything that slows down the Dems is good" vs. "voting is a scam!" vs. "Real libertarians support the American Third Position Party!" vs. "we should form issue based ad-hoc alliances!" so maybe I just come to it from that perspective, and unlike libertarians, black people are actually numerous enough to be more politically relevant than they seem to be. (I'm mostly in that last ad-hoc camp. Though I'm sure the A3P produces a quality newsletter, especially the Kevin MacDonald articles.)

tl;dr: I have concerns about the two parties bases becoming cemented ultra majority blocs, especially along ethnic or racial lines. I consider it to probably actually reduce representation and to increase extremism. Probably will encourage violence. I have no actual solutions.

Of course, I don't understand why the War on Drugs is such a non-issue in American politics, so I'm most likely just naive. Probably what all my political science colleagues think when I don't care about their MODERN SOCIAL POLICY IMPERATIVES fetish (FAT TAXES EXERCISE SUBSIDIES fapfapfapfapfap) considering all the mostly young minority males we're forcing into black markets, imprisoning and killing. (Not to mention what it's done to our police.)

Or they think that I'm just a stoner.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

I was talking to a urban studies/urban policy guy about some thing he had on impact of single mothers and I asked him how much he thought the war on drugs contributed to the illegitimacy/single mothers "problem" and he just rambled off like "yes, yes, that's why we need increased housing loans, more greenspaces and enterprise zones, expanded job training, after school and childcare programs and an sustainable minimum wage to restore the inner cities." I was depressed for like a week. 

[close]

[close]

Why doesn't the GOP reach out to black voters?

Short, inflammatory answer: Because it's fucking racist, bro.

Longer, nuanced answer (gonna rehash a bunch of Nixonland-y stuff you're already aware of):  There are a lot of white voters who, to varying degrees and in various ways, are culturally averse/suspicious/unsympathetic toward black people and who don't want to see politicians and government beholden to black interests.  They've been welcome in the GOP and have had lots of their attitudes (about food stamps/welfare, the Civil War, busing, affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc.) adopted by mainstream US conservatism.

Rhetoric that makes black people feel unwelcome in the GOP tells those white voters "We're on your side, against them."  Everyone calls that stuff dog whistles, but it's a bad metaphor.  A dog whistle can only be comprehended by the dog, but everyone can hear the racial undertones when Rush Limbaugh talks.  It's just kept nice enough that it's deniable.  Cause they're not worried about offending black people (whose votes they've forsaken), they're worried about offending white people who don't want to be seen as blatantly, explicitly racist.

So pissing off black voters has been a feature, rather than a bug.  Even if changing demographics mean that incentive doesn't work for the GOP at large any more, it probably does work for the individual politicians, who are trying to win primaries or get a better standing within conservative circles.  Bush may have spoke to the Urban League when he was secure as the president and his party's leader, but when he was in a primary fight, he made that speech at Bob Jones University while they still had a ban on interracial dating.

So really, just basic identity politics.  Can't be too nice to Ethnic Group A when shunning them is what gets you the support of Ethnic Group B.

"But their policies should benefit both groups, or at least they should believe that, so why leave votes on the table rather than broaden their base?"  Cause even if Bush or a couple earnest policy advisors in the GOP really believe that their brand of pro-business policies would be good for poor black communities, their base supports those policies because they believe they will hurt poor black communities, or at least force the lazy and undeserving to carry their fair share.

Like I said, I don't think this is really new to you.  But I noticed a certain tendency among libertarians to be a bit hyper-literal and -logical in looking at things, and even when you think you've made allowances for the shenanigans of humanity... nope!  The answer here is just people being dumb and tribal and cruel to each other.



Re:  Strategic voting among blacks/libertarians.  I think the dilemma for libertarians is more like that of American leftists back in the day (like actual commies).  Libertarians don't really have a cultural identity or social institutions outside of politics, and besides being fewer they're not geographically concentrated in the same way.  For that matter, your goals affect how you organize.  If you're a group that's been historically marginalized, then you're going to want access and power.  From the outside it may seem like getting black people elected is a shallow/unproductive goal, but for a group that's been shut out for so long?

I don't like one party systems either, but I don't know how much of that's my own bias.  Surely there are tons of counties that are deep blue or deep red without serious issues of cronyism, and even in DC campaigns for mayor and council spots are pretty hotly contested, just with the action happening more in the primaries than the general, so there's definitely a big representative aspect.  It's not a good sign that voters cleave on racial lines, but I think the split in party identification is much more a symptom of broading racial issues than the cause.


edit: Why isn't ending the drug war a high priority?  Its only constituencies are drug users and a subset of urban policy wonks.  That's not a formula for an organized and powerful lobby.  Potentially sympathetic politicians are going to see a lot more downside than upside in taking it on.

[Phoenix Dark]

States rights is definitely a dog whistle, and quite alive and well within the party. So while there certainly is an overt dislike of blacks coming from right wing media, there's also a more subtle underpinning among more mainstream conservatism that reassures the nativist members of the movement that blacks still get hurt more than whites.

Perhaps an even larger problem is that many conservatives hate racial minority identity, and therefore cannot agree with messaging aimed at appealing to any group that dares prefix their race ahead of their nationality. The mainstream GOP message on Hispanics is that if you just take race (immigration reform) out of the equation you Americize them, and their natural hard work/can do spirit plus religious beliefs will make them realize they're natural republicans. They treat women the same: if you eliminate abortion and equal rights you can make women realize they're republicans at heart.

Which goes back to subtle insinuations that are racial. When you suggest Hispanics and Asians should be republicans because they work hard, yet ignore black outreach as a lost cause, aren't you insinuating that blacks do not work hard and therefore will always be democrats? After all isn't that why they love Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, and Clarence Thomas so much: because they can directly say that without being called racist?

[Positive Touch]

it gets into that "real american" shit: a real american will always be conservative and white, and all white liberals will be americans too, just bad misguided ones. poc can be allies (not just individuals but whole racial groups - if they get their act together, that is) but they can never be "true" americans, because whiteness is implicit in that phrase.

also with that logic, there can never be specific programs that help poc because they are the cause of their own problems, and the closer they get to "whiteness" the less problems they will (supposedly) have. going out of your way to help them means that you are placing them above white people, when white should always be at the top.

[Steve Contra]

The Cyprus bailout  :wtf2

[Dickie Dee]

[Boogie]

well, of course.

[Oblivion]

All those Big Gulps and Chick Filets can't be good for Palin's heart.

[Joe Molotov]

All those Big Gulps and Chick Filets can't be good for Palin's heart.

Her heart is shriveled and black, much like her brain.

[Phoenix Dark]

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

The Cyprus bailout  :wtf2

Tomorrow and Tuesday are going to be very interesting.

[Phoenix Dark]

we shall see

meanwhile

[Brehvolution]

Is there even anything constructive at cpac anymore? It just sounds like all the wind bags that fox news has on during the year get together and spew the same bullshit to each other.

[Oblivion]

Was CPAC ever supposed to be constructive?

[Phoenix Dark]

 :orly

Merkel don't give a fuck

[Yeti]

Is there an L(iberal)PAC? I tried to google, but all I found was one where the L stood for Lesbian and one where the L stood for Liberty that had speakers like Rand Paul and the producer for Atlas Shrugged 2, so I'm guessing that one isn't it.

[Phoenix Dark]

Netroots is the liberal equivalent. 

[Olivia Wilde Homo]

 

[Positive Touch]

i dun get it

[Dickie Dee]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/history-channels-satan-looks-a-lot-like-barack-obama

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[Positive Touch]

saw twitter going crazy over this last night. apparently hes also one of the only nonwhite cast members in the series, too.

[Joe Molotov]

They don't call him the Prince of Darkness for nothing.  :orly

[DCharlieJP]

Not sure where to put this UK DESK news - but Workfare now in place.

People are losing their minds already

[Broseidon]

I hate this fucking government.

[Oblivion]

[Phoenix Dark]

i said god damn

[Great Rumbler]

Can we please get more politicians like Elizabeth Warren in Washington?

[tiesto]

Which goes back to subtle insinuations that are racial. When you suggest Hispanics and Asians should be republicans because they work hard, yet ignore black outreach as a lost cause, aren't you insinuating that blacks do not work hard and therefore will always be democrats? After all isn't that why they love Hermain Cain, Alan Keyes, and Clarence Thomas so much: because they can directly say that without being called racist?

Interesting note about Asians... is that in the 80's they were majority Republican (Reagan Republicans) but since the days of Bush, they've moved to the left.

[AdmiralViscen]

I wish I could have voted for her

[Mandark]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/130999130/RNC-Growth-Opportunity-Book-2013


The big report from the RNC on what the GOP needs to change.  I'm about halfway through right now.

[Phoenix Dark]

Summaries were enough for me. Basically:

-hey guys, lots of Hispanics are in this country already
-being too mean to gay people scares straight young people away
-the more people see us, the less they like. so let's reduce the 2016 primary's length

Republicans should move the South Carolina primary as far from early 2016 as possible. Last year showed how easy it is for complete clown candidates to dominate the early process; since (crazy) Iowa won't be moved I think it's time to get rid of SC, and let Florida be the first southern state.

[Joe Molotov]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/130999130/RNC-Growth-Opportunity-Book-2013


The big report from the RNC on what the GOP needs to change.  I'm about halfway through right now.

Ctrl+F "Cain Train"

 

[Phoenix Dark]

President Obama on Thursday in Ramallah, West Bank drew a comparison between the Middle East peace process and the United States' struggle for equal rights.

"That's why we can't give up," Obama said at a joint press conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "Because of young Palestinians and young Israelis who deserve a better future than one that is continually defined by conflict. Whenever I meet these young people, whether they are Palestinian or Israeli, I'm reminded of my own daughters, and I know what hopes and aspirations I have for them. Those of us in the United States understand that change takes time, but it is also possible. Because there was a time when my daughters could not expect to have the same opportunities in their own country as somebody else's daughters. What's true in the United States can be true here as well."

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obama-compares-middle-east-peace-process-to-us?ref=fpblg

outrage in 3...2...1..

[Steve Contra]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-sarcastically-asks-how-israel-afforded-such,31750/

The Onion killing it.

[Eric P]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/21/low_info_lingo_chop_and_screw

“Anyway, I looked up chop and screw. He’s right. It’s a mixing technique… It remixes hip-hop music, which I’m told developed in Houston. Well, the chop and screw developed in Houston, not hip-hop. The chop and screw technique remixes hip-hop music with the kind of music that was in Houston in the 1990s in the hip-hop scene. And it’s done by slowing down the tempo and skipping beats. It ends up sounding like a chopped up version of a tune, and so it’s called chop and screw. There’s even an app for it.”

- Rush Limbaugh

[Brehvolution]

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gingrich-santorum-couldnt-agree-on-who-would-be?ref=fpb

Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were close to forming a "unity ticket" to challenge Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential primaries, Bloomberg Businessweek's Joshua Green reported Friday. But ultimately the two men couldn't agree on who would be president if they won.

“In the end, it was just too hard to negotiate," Gingrich said in the report.

“I was disappointed when Speaker Gingrich ultimately decided against this idea, because it could have changed the outcome of the primary,” Santorum told Businessweek. “And more importantly, it could have changed the outcome of the general election.”

  The hubris of these people.

[Steve Contra]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/21/low_info_lingo_chop_and_screw

“Anyway, I looked up chop and screw. He’s right. It’s a mixing technique… It remixes hip-hop music, which I’m told developed in Houston. Well, the chop and screw developed in Houston, not hip-hop. The chop and screw technique remixes hip-hop music with the kind of music that was in Houston in the 1990s in the hip-hop scene. And it’s done by slowing down the tempo and skipping beats. It ends up sounding like a chopped up version of a tune, and so it’s called chop and screw. There’s even an app for it.”

- Rush Limbaugh

Fuck, with Limbaugh's drugs he should be all over that.

[Barry Egan]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/03/21/low_info_lingo_chop_and_screw

“Anyway, I looked up chop and screw. He’s right. It’s a mixing technique… It remixes hip-hop music, which I’m told developed in Houston. Well, the chop and screw developed in Houston, not hip-hop. The chop and screw technique remixes hip-hop music with the kind of music that was in Houston in the 1990s in the hip-hop scene. And it’s done by slowing down the tempo and skipping beats. It ends up sounding like a chopped up version of a tune, and so it’s called chop and screw. There’s even an app for it.”

- Rush Limbaugh