Why the Republican Party Is So White


A bit long for a middle of the day break, but fascinating.

I've often wondered how the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower became what it is today.
Outrageous! The Republican party is almost as white as the Stranger's readership. Or writers.
lol @2 - also, The Stranger editors, you misspelled "Mudede" in the byline.
Speaking of racism, why is it that Joe Flacco, Italian American #1 Super Bowl winning QB gets almost zero national press?

Here, learn how Italian Flacco and the Ravens are:

The Baltimore Ravens are a Proud Italian American Football Team


@4 All things considered, Joe Flacco is a pretty unremarkable sports story. First round pick matures, develops into Super Bowl MVP franchise QB five years into his NFL career? Good, but boring. Theoretically, that's exactly what he was SUPPOSED to do anyway.

Now, if he wants to take off his shirt and beat the crap out of someone in a nightclub, I'm sure the national press would be all over that.
The Republican party is what it is because it supports policies that benefit only small minded, hateful people. Their failed ideology brought this country down again. And it's based on overt racist state's rights falsehoods that have been used to disenfranchise people. These same people use the bible the way they use the constitution. To spread hate and ignorance. And people like KKKarl Rove have only themselves to blame. They have purposely courted these cretins. Part of being a world leader is about what you stand for at home. Republicans stand for hate.

Ok so you're saying they'd rather see a guy who looks like a bottle of Dr. Bronners with philosophical statements tattooed over his body but who ended up in New Orleans looking like a 9th grader transferred to a new middle school than a guy who actually won with lots of talent.
Great article. It's amazing the swapping of places of the two parties. "American politics is the revenge of the South for the Civil War." Loved that line.

The article made it clear that the Republican party consists of an elite who control the party, and a deluded mass who are controlled by the party. While the elites may have some political perspective or philosophy, it appears to be one of convenience rather than principle.

Of late, it has been convenient for them to recruit poorly educated Whites in rural areas with a cultural message rather than any political message. These are Sarah Palin's "Real Americans". They are the members of the American mono-culture and they are fighting a rear-guard action against multi-culturalism. They stand for "traditional American" [fill in the blank] against the incursion of foreign ideas - as well as anyone who is not a member of the American mono-culture. Anyone who does not have a northern European heritage (preferably Anglo and protestant) is not a Real American by their reckoning and therefore not only suspect but guilty.

The Republican Party is and will be the party of Whites because they decided to foster a culture war and they chose the losing side. In the end, multi-culturalism will win. How are you going to keep them down on the farm after they have seen Gangnam Style?
@7: um, well, yeah. If you're looking for moral consistency, the "sports press' is maybe not your best starting point.
Jesus Christ, @4, is there any thread you won't attempt to derail with some inane, barely topical point? Have you ever considered the possibility that people people want to read the comments on a story without you throwing up 10 YouTube videos a day? Maybe you should consider getting your own blog. I bet if you ask real polite like, and then agreed to stop compulsively thread jacking, you could get them to include a mention of it on some slog post. After which we could all post about, I don't know, ponies or something.
@2 You can tell what race we all are?
Interesting that the sidebar includes some information on Ward Connerly and the infamous Prop. 209 which basically ended affirmative action in California. Connerly, of course, is an African-American who established a small construction company in the late 1950s and proceeded to build it into a very big construction company by going after every available minority-contract set-aside he could bid on, to the point that he made his (non-minority) wife a 50% paper partner in the business so he could bid on woman-owned business set-asides. Then, after he made a PILE and sold off the company, he decided affirmative action and race-based set-asides were demeaning and unfair and biased, etc. In other words, I've got mine, Jack, and now I'm going to make sure you never get yours. I'd call him a POS but I think any self-respecting POS probably has a higher moral standard than he does. YMMV.


Why are you so prejudiced against lateral thinking?

I didn't know I was going to be diverted into a history lesson on the National Review. That took me right into snoozeville and I gave up after the third paragraph. The first part was interesting though.
@12 Yes, honky. Next question?
This portion resonated with me, since it reminds me of a lot of conservative thinking on marriage equality (that there are much more important issues so why bother with marriage equality):

"From this perspective, the Little Rock Nine, far from personifying the hopes of a community, were instead the "pawns and guinea pigs" of liberal social experimenters. The actual conflicts were almost irrelevant. "Segregated schooling, in terms of the larger issues involved, is about as important as Jenkin's Ear," Buckley wrote in 1956. "

Assholes in 1956, assholes in 2013.
11, the answer to your first question, I believe, is "no."

Not only wildly off-topic, but he went full retard today. Since the election, he's pretty much lost it.