<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: They can&#8217;t afford to antagonize their base</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:59:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: The Mahablog &raquo; The Wisdom of Doubt, Part VII</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432910</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:09:31 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432910</guid>
					<description>[...] This week at the Faith and Public Life web site, Pastor Dan Schultz of Street Prophets comments on the Amy Sullivan column: I think we can&amp;#8217;t let the vision of history put forward in these Time articles go unchallenged. Nowhere in Amy Sullivan&amp;#8217;s column was there a mention of the role race played in bringing together the Religious Right, for example. Were it not for the Carter administration&amp;#8217;s challenge to the tax-exempt status of segregated &amp;#8220;Christian Academies&amp;#8221; throughout the South, it&amp;#8217;s unlikely that the Religious Right would even exist in the form we recognize it today. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] This week at the Faith and Public Life web site, Pastor Dan Schultz of Street Prophets comments on the Amy Sullivan column: I think we can&#8217;t let the vision of history put forward in these Time articles go unchallenged. Nowhere in Amy Sullivan&#8217;s column was there a mention of the role race played in bringing together the Religious Right, for example. Were it not for the Carter administration&#8217;s challenge to the tax-exempt status of segregated &#8220;Christian Academies&#8221; throughout the South, it&#8217;s unlikely that the Religious Right would even exist in the form we recognize it today. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: YetAnotherRick</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432895</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:21:19 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432895</guid>
					<description>Amanda wrote:
&quot;But Sullivan seems to think this means that Obama is going to get a lot of red state Republicans to vote for him. Iâ€™m not kidding.&quot;

I'm sure you're not kidding. But you're also not reading Sullivan correctly. She's interested in getting *enough* swing voters to switch. You and so many others can't  stop jerking your knees every time Sullivan speaks. You're doing a great job of identifying heretics, instead of looking for converts and allies, like Obama is doing. Successfully, I might add. There's already a few conservative groups supporting Obama.

Rich wrote:
&quot;Both my minister in my local church and James Dobson wears relgious vestments.&quot;

Oy. Dobson is a psychiatrist.

About Mexicans and immigration, Niewert was recently talking about preservation of white privilege. The Democrats want strong unions, which, in places like Iowa packing plants, would preserve white privilege.

And regarding the supposed racists origins of the Religious Right, don't forget the eugenics origins of the pro-choice movement. It is beyond ridiculous to think that teh Religious Right could have become what it is today on race. Abortion is what really fueled it's rise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Amanda wrote:<br />
&#8220;But Sullivan seems to think this means that Obama is going to get a lot of red state Republicans to vote for him. Iâ€™m not kidding.&#8221;</p>
	<p>I&#8217;m sure you&#8217;re not kidding. But you&#8217;re also not reading Sullivan correctly. She&#8217;s interested in getting *enough* swing voters to switch. You and so many others can&#8217;t  stop jerking your knees every time Sullivan speaks. You&#8217;re doing a great job of identifying heretics, instead of looking for converts and allies, like Obama is doing. Successfully, I might add. There&#8217;s already a few conservative groups supporting Obama.</p>
	<p>Rich wrote:<br />
&#8220;Both my minister in my local church and James Dobson wears relgious vestments.&#8221;</p>
	<p>Oy. Dobson is a psychiatrist.</p>
	<p>About Mexicans and immigration, Niewert was recently talking about preservation of white privilege. The Democrats want strong unions, which, in places like Iowa packing plants, would preserve white privilege.</p>
	<p>And regarding the supposed racists origins of the Religious Right, don&#8217;t forget the eugenics origins of the pro-choice movement. It is beyond ridiculous to think that teh Religious Right could have become what it is today on race. Abortion is what really fueled it&#8217;s rise.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Cizungu</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432392</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 23:01:43 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432392</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;how can â€œsoccer momsâ€? NOT be targeted toward women?&lt;/i&gt;

It was ironic because there isn't really such a thing as &quot;soccer moms,&quot; in the sense of a unified body of like-minded women. Moreover, as far as I can tell, most of the soccer moms' purported opinions can be ascribed to men as well. Perhaps there was a grain of truth to the concept back in the 90s, but these days, I think it's barely above David Brooks-level journalism. In my post, I was doing the whole politics-as-marketing thing, and the &quot;soccer moms &lt;i&gt;&amp;amp; affiliated suburbanites&lt;/i&gt;&quot; was part of the theme.

I was criticizing suburbanites &lt;i&gt;in general.&lt;/i&gt; (And no, this doesn't mean that 100% of suburbanites are politically lazy. Just as criticism of Republicans isn't criticism of all Republican voters. Same with Christians, etc.)

And now I've gotten all convoluted. That's how classic rock died. Fuck it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>how can â€œsoccer momsâ€? NOT be targeted toward women?</i></p>
	<p>It was ironic because there isn&#8217;t really such a thing as &#8220;soccer moms,&#8221; in the sense of a unified body of like-minded women. Moreover, as far as I can tell, most of the soccer moms&#8217; purported opinions can be ascribed to men as well. Perhaps there was a grain of truth to the concept back in the 90s, but these days, I think it&#8217;s barely above David Brooks-level journalism. In my post, I was doing the whole politics-as-marketing thing, and the &#8220;soccer moms <i>&amp; affiliated suburbanites</i>&#8221; was part of the theme.</p>
	<p>I was criticizing suburbanites <i>in general.</i> (And no, this doesn&#8217;t mean that 100% of suburbanites are politically lazy. Just as criticism of Republicans isn&#8217;t criticism of all Republican voters. Same with Christians, etc.)</p>
	<p>And now I&#8217;ve gotten all convoluted. That&#8217;s how classic rock died. Fuck it.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MAJeff, the God of Biscuits</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432272</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:34:51 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432272</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;How do you think those of us who have to fly in and out of Washington National Airport feel? [shudder]&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I will &lt;i&gt;never&lt;/i&gt; refer to it as Reagan.  It's always &quot;National.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>How do you think those of us who have to fly in and out of Washington National Airport feel? [shudder]</p></blockquote>
	<p>I will <i>never</i> refer to it as Reagan.  It&#8217;s always &#8220;National.&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Tina H</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432252</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:50:08 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432252</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;And I still get nauseated whenever I hear someone trying to get his face carved on Mount Rushmore or something.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

How do you think those of us who have to fly in and out of Washington National Airport feel?  [shudder]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>And I still get nauseated whenever I hear someone trying to get his face carved on Mount Rushmore or something.</p></blockquote>
	<p>How do you think those of us who have to fly in and out of Washington National Airport feel?  [shudder]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: labyrus</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432107</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:35:47 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432107</guid>
					<description>I would really, really like to think that at least some religiously-motivated voters vote for the religious right not because of racism but because they're being duped.

Those are people we can...well, save for lack of a better term. I'm not sure what to with the hardcore racists.

And YES - The fact that more and more people live in the suburbs and are totally disconnected from political life has a lot to do with the ascendacy of the right. No, humorless feminist, it's not really about you. There's a fairly wide class of people who might be called &quot;soccer moms&quot;, and has it occured to you that most of them propably wouldn't even want to have anything to do with someone like yourself who self-identifies as a feminist?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I would really, really like to think that at least some religiously-motivated voters vote for the religious right not because of racism but because they&#8217;re being duped.</p>
	<p>Those are people we can&#8230;well, save for lack of a better term. I&#8217;m not sure what to with the hardcore racists.</p>
	<p>And YES - The fact that more and more people live in the suburbs and are totally disconnected from political life has a lot to do with the ascendacy of the right. No, humorless feminist, it&#8217;s not really about you. There&#8217;s a fairly wide class of people who might be called &#8220;soccer moms&#8221;, and has it occured to you that most of them propably wouldn&#8217;t even want to have anything to do with someone like yourself who self-identifies as a feminist?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: gordo</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432014</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:05:34 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432014</guid>
					<description>This isn't the only forum that most of the Republicans have missed. Every Democrat except Mike Gravel managed to attend the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) forum, but Duncan Hunter was the only Republican who showed up.

So it looks like you're right: no Republican candidate who has a shot at the nomination will risk spoiling his chances by associating himself with blacks or Hispanics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>This isn&#8217;t the only forum that most of the Republicans have missed. Every Democrat except Mike Gravel managed to attend the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) forum, but Duncan Hunter was the only Republican who showed up.</p>
	<p>So it looks like you&#8217;re right: no Republican candidate who has a shot at the nomination will risk spoiling his chances by associating himself with blacks or Hispanics.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mnemosyne</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432008</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jul 2007 02:41:34 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-432008</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;Well, here in Los Angeles, with the largest percentage of illegal Mexicans in the nation, itâ€™s true that Black jobs have been stolen and/or their wages depressed because of the influx of mostly Mexican illegal immigrants, who have not only appropriated their jobs, but their neighborhoods as well (including the small black-owned neighborhood businesses that serviced them).&lt;/i&gt;

Wow, that's the stupidest interpretation of what's going on here in Los Angeles that I've ever heard in my life.  Do you even live within the county limits, or are you sitting up in Thousand Oaks going, &quot;Fuckin' Mexicans stealing all the jobs&quot;?

As many, many, many others in this thread have pointed out, it's not the illegal workers who &quot;stole&quot; jobs from African-Americans.  It's people like you who didn't want to have to pay minimum wage and decided it would be much better to pay some poor non-English-speaking illegal worker $2.00 an hour, especially since you could stiff him on his pay half the time and he would have no one to complain to, unlike an American citizen worker who could take your ass to court.

So, no, Mexicans and other Central and South Americans haven't &quot;stolen&quot; anything.  YOU handed those jobs over to them because you were a cheap son of a bitch who thought that paying $5.25 an hour for a dishwasher was just too much money.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>Well, here in Los Angeles, with the largest percentage of illegal Mexicans in the nation, itâ€™s true that Black jobs have been stolen and/or their wages depressed because of the influx of mostly Mexican illegal immigrants, who have not only appropriated their jobs, but their neighborhoods as well (including the small black-owned neighborhood businesses that serviced them).</i></p>
	<p>Wow, that&#8217;s the stupidest interpretation of what&#8217;s going on here in Los Angeles that I&#8217;ve ever heard in my life.  Do you even live within the county limits, or are you sitting up in Thousand Oaks going, &#8220;Fuckin&#8217; Mexicans stealing all the jobs&#8221;?</p>
	<p>As many, many, many others in this thread have pointed out, it&#8217;s not the illegal workers who &#8220;stole&#8221; jobs from African-Americans.  It&#8217;s people like you who didn&#8217;t want to have to pay minimum wage and decided it would be much better to pay some poor non-English-speaking illegal worker $2.00 an hour, especially since you could stiff him on his pay half the time and he would have no one to complain to, unlike an American citizen worker who could take your ass to court.</p>
	<p>So, no, Mexicans and other Central and South Americans haven&#8217;t &#8220;stolen&#8221; anything.  YOU handed those jobs over to them because you were a cheap son of a bitch who thought that paying $5.25 an hour for a dishwasher was just too much money.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: wayward</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-431950</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 22:14:19 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-431950</guid>
					<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
The GOP base is 100% racist, 100% misogynist, and 100% homophobic. Basic things for all of you to remember. Why else do you think the wingnuts are fighting against Clarendon County and other counties in this country with a black majority and fighting for Lexington County and other counties with a white majority?
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

100% is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's definitely over 50%.

While I am sure race is a factor, it is not quite that simple.

Clarendon County is majority black. Lexington County is majority white
Clarendon County is fairly poor, while Lexington County is relatively affluent.
Nor surprisingly, Clarendon County is a Democratic stronghold and Lexington County overwhelmingly Republican. 

So, are the Republicans fighting for Lexington County because they are white, because they are affluent, or because they are loyal Republican voters? Good question.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<blockquote><p>
The GOP base is 100% racist, 100% misogynist, and 100% homophobic. Basic things for all of you to remember. Why else do you think the wingnuts are fighting against Clarendon County and other counties in this country with a black majority and fighting for Lexington County and other counties with a white majority?
</p></blockquote>
	<p>100% is a bit of an exaggeration, but it&#8217;s definitely over 50%.</p>
	<p>While I am sure race is a factor, it is not quite that simple.</p>
	<p>Clarendon County is majority black. Lexington County is majority white<br />
Clarendon County is fairly poor, while Lexington County is relatively affluent.<br />
Nor surprisingly, Clarendon County is a Democratic stronghold and Lexington County overwhelmingly Republican. </p>
	<p>So, are the Republicans fighting for Lexington County because they are white, because they are affluent, or because they are loyal Republican voters? Good question.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Jovan1984</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-431922</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:53:08 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/07/14/gop-snubs-naacp/#comment-431922</guid>
					<description>The GOP base is 100% racist, 100% misogynist, and 100% homophobic.  Basic things for all of you to remember.  Why else do you think the wingnuts are fighting against Clarendon County and other counties in this country with a black majority and fighting for Lexington County and other counties with a white majority?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The GOP base is 100% racist, 100% misogynist, and 100% homophobic.  Basic things for all of you to remember.  Why else do you think the wingnuts are fighting against Clarendon County and other counties in this country with a black majority and fighting for Lexington County and other counties with a white majority?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

