Hey, "Crazy Eyes" Michelle, now are you starting to get it?

[Starving_Artist]

@boytyperanma

As Democrats have twice the number of elected women as the Republicans…

This is meaningless. Women and blacks have only recently begun to realize that their sex and their race does not bar them from Republican politics after all, and so they’re just beginning to show up in greater numbers now. They see people like Elizabeth Dole and Clarence Thomas being wecomed by, and achieving prominence in, the Republican party. They see Sarah Palin elected to the governorship of Alaska and going on to become a vice presidential candidate and Tea Party powerhouse whose books become instant best sellers and whose bus tours create pandemonium by a press anxious to cover their every move.

Then, in addition to Palin they see Jan Brewer of Arizona, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Jodi Rell of Connecticut, and Linda Lingle of Hawaii all elected to governorships by a Republican electorate. They also see Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; Olympia Snowe of Maine; Susan Collins, also of Maine; Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas all elected to the senate by Republican electorates.

Looking to the House of Representatives we find the following women in office, their having also been chosen by a Republican electorate: Sandy Adams, Florida; Michele Bachmann, Minnesota; Jody Borg Biggert, Illinois; Diane Black, Tennessee; Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee; Mary Bono Mack, California; Ann Marie Buerkle, New York; Shelly Moore Capito, West Virginia; Renee Ellmers, North Carolina; Jo Ann Emerson, Missouri; Virginia Foxx, North Carolina; Kay Granger, Texas; Vicky Hartzler, Missouri; Nan Hayworth, New York; Jaime Herrera Beutler, Washington; Lynn Jenkins, Kansas; Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming; Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington; Candice Miller, Michigan; Sue Myrick, North Carolina; Kristi Noem, South Dakota; Martha Roby, Alabama; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Florida; and Jean Schmidt, Ohio.

And that is just the number of women that Republicans have elected to gubernatorial or congressional office. Undoubedly the number in city and state legislative offices would amount to a great many more.

Clearly the notion that women are not welcome in Republican politics just doesn’t hold water. If anything, I’d say they’re more than welcome because in my opinion they’re often more passionate about promoting conservative values than are many of the men.

[boytyperanma]

@Starving_Artist

Women and blacks have only recently begun to realize that their sex and their race does not bar them from Republican politics after all

I see so they are just slower to come to realizations then their white male counterparts, maybe you aren’t the best person to argue equality in the Republican party.

[typoink]

@Starving_Artist

This is meaningless. Women and blacks have only recently begun to realize that their sex and their race does not bar them from Republican politics after all, and so they’re just beginning to show up in greater numbers now.

Yeah, uh. The fact that the Republican Party seems more welcoming to women now is because the Republican Party is more welcoming to women now.

And they are. They’re also playing catch-up to the Democrats on this front. Which is why the Democrats have elected more women up until now.

Nobody’s saying the Republicans are getting more sexist. Obviously progress and equality march on.

But, seriously? Is it fair to say some sexists still exist? I’m pretty sure it is, because I absolutely know some. Maybe there ARE only, like, six or seven and they all live in the Chicago suburbs. But I’m gonna go ahead and guess there’s a few more.

So let’s assume that sexists exist. Which party do you think more of them support? Protip: Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.

[Starving_Artist]

Look, we can argue all night about why women and minorities are doing so well in Republican politics and who should get the most credit, but the fact is that they are doing very well indeed.

So isn’t it time to drop the trope that Republicans won’t elect women or minorities because of sexism and racism? This claim has never been true (I could list Republican women having been elected to congress going back as far as the early 20th century) but to continue to make such accusations today in the face of so much evidence to the contrary accomplishes nothing but to make the left look either foolish or dishonest.

It’s time to acknowledge that a bright new day has dawned, and that accusations of sexism and racism no longer have any place in the liberal quiver of political arrows.

[boytyperanma]

@Starving_Artist

Look, we can argue all night about why women and minorities are doing so well in Republican politics and who should get the most credit, but the fact is that they are doing very well indeed.

Well I guess if your going to make up facts we really can’t argue with you. Being elected at half the rate of Democratic women is doing very well indeed…

[Starving_Artist]

So what’s the argument here? I thought it was that women and minorities couldn’t get elected by Republicans because Republicans are sexist and racist and won’t vote for them. Now you’re trying to shift the goalposts and make the issue one of which side elects the most, which is a completely different issue with a number of variables that don’t exist in the first argument. So which one is it you want to claim here? I can’t argue against one assertion if you’re only going to counter with a different assertion involving a claim that hasn’t even been made.

[jayjay]

Why do some black people become Republicans?

Because if you can make it to the convention, you’re guaranteed to be on TV.

[Little_Nemo]

But in all your protests about how great blacks and women have it in the Republican party, I notice there’s one thing you’ve turned a blind eye to.

Comparing how black and women have it in the Democratic party during the same period.

That’s the argument that you’re avoiding. Show us some evidence that blacks or women get better treatment from the Republicans than they get from the Democrats.

[Starving_Artist]

@Little_Nemo

But in all your protests about how great blacks and women have it in the Republican party, I notice there’s one thing you’ve turned a blind eye to.

Comparing how black and women have it in the Democratic party during the same period.

That’s the argument that you’re avoiding. Show us some evidence that blacks or women get better treatment from the Republicans than they get from the Democrats.

I’ve “turned a blind eye to it”? I’m “avoiding it”? Hell, I haven’t even thought about it.

You guys are just too funny. Some dipshit says Bachmann will never get elected because Republicans are too sexist to elect a woman. I show oodles of Republican women in high elective and appointive office, and suddenly the issue becomes “Oh, yeah? Oh, yeah? Well…well…who elected the most of them? Huh? Who? Who?” Or, “Which party treats them best?” (This one gets a :rolleyes:.)

Women and minorities do great in the Republican party. Examples abound. End of story.

[AlienVessels]

@Starving_Artist

So isn’t it time to drop the trope that Republicans won’t elect women or minorities because of sexism and racism? This claim has never been true (I could list Republican women having been elected to congress going back as far as the early 20th century) but to continue to make such accusations today in the face of so much evidence to the contrary accomplishes nothing but to make the left look either foolish or dishonest.

It’s time to acknowledge that a bright new day has dawned, and that accusations of sexism and racism no longer have any place in the liberal quiver of political arrows.

When the class photos of Republican conventions look demographically similar to the Democratic ones, we might agree that it’s just a “trope”.

That’s a classic Republican dodge, citing absolute values when they know the real proportions make their claims absurd.

[Starving_Artist]

@AlienVessels

When the class photos of Republican conventions look demographically similar to the Democratic ones, we might agree that it’s just a “trope”.

I take it then that you have also concluded that the lack of black faces at Woodstock is proof that the counterculture was racist?

This is yet another favorite (and false) “trope” of the left. There are very good reasons why there aren’t as many black people at Republican conventions or Tea Party rallies as there are at Democratic ones, and they have nothing to do with racist Republican attitudes toward blacks. Just a few off the top of my head:

1. Something like 90% of the black population support the Democrats. That alone explains why you see so few blacks at Republican conventions. If 90% of all women voted Democrat you wouldn’t see many of them there either. The same could be said of blondes, brunettes and people who wear cotton.

2. Because of the decades long practice of the left to call conservative blacks Uncle Toms or regard them as “traitors”, many blacks who might otherwise want to attend, don’t for the very simple reason that they don’t want to be photographed attending a Republican gathering.

3. A lot of Republican blacks, like a lot of Republican whites, simply lack the funds and/or the ability to take off from work in order to attend Republican conventions and rallies.

So you see, there are lots of reasons why blacks would be under represented at Republican political gatherings that have nothing to do with racist attitudes on the part of Republicans, just like there are a lot of reasons why blacks were under represented at Woodstock which have nothing to do with racism on the part of the people who were there.

[AlienVessels]

@Starving_Artist

I take it then that you have also concluded that the lack of black faces at Woodstock is proof that the counterculture was racist?

This is yet another favorite (and false) “trope” of the left. There are very good reasons why there aren’t as many black people at Republican conventions or Tea Party rallies as there are at Democratic ones, and they have nothing to do with racist Republican attitudes toward blacks. Just a few off the top of my head:

1. Something like 90% of the black population support the Democrats. That alone explains why you see so few blacks at Republican conventions. If 90% of all women voted Democrat you wouldn’t see many of them there either. The same could be said of blondes, brunettes and people who wear cotton.

There is a vast difference between a single event and a recurring one. And “aren’t as many”? That’s chuckleworthy.

There are historical reasons why Blacks support Democrats and not the least of which is the fact that Democrats return the favor. Republicans pick up the exceptions that are willing to sublimate their immediate self-interest in exchange for supporting ideology that claims to address their long term self-interest.

That’s the reason for that 90% number. It’s not some unrelated factor like hair color as you imply.

[Kobal2]

@Starving_Artist

I take it then that you have also concluded that the lack of black faces at Woodstock is proof that the counterculture was racist?

Let’s see, there was Jimi of course ; Mister Richie Havens ; Swami Satchinadanda ; Ravi Shankar ; Sly & the Family Stone ; Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young (no, wait, Bill Crosby wasn’t in that band, scratch that) ; Joan Baez is half Latina… plenty of non-whites at Woodstock.

1. Something like 90% of the black population support the Democrats.

And why do you think that is, exactly ?

3. A lot of Republican blacks, like a lot of Republican whites, simply lack the funds and/or the ability to take off from work in order to attend Republican conventions and rallies.

Unless the proportions are vastly dissimilar, this is a non-factor.

[jayjay]

@Kobal2

Unless the proportions are vastly dissimilar, this is a non-factor.

But you missed the actual insult in the line you responded to, here. Which is that Republicans, unlike Democrats (and especially black Democrats), work.

[Little_Nemo]

@Starving_Artist

Something like 90% of the black population support the Democrats. That alone explains why you see so few blacks at Republican conventions. If 90% of all women voted Democrat you wouldn’t see many of them there either. The same could be said of blondes, brunettes and people who wear cotton.

That’s not an answer, that’s the question.

[42fish]

@Starving_Artist

The second female Vice Presidential candidate and the first in 23 years was a Republican.

@Starving_Artist

Palin wasn’t the first female vice presidential candidate, but she was the first of the last 23 years.

@Starving_Artist

I’m hopping back and forth between threads and forgot I’d already clarified the 23 year thing about Palin…

Psst: 2008 - 1984 = 24 years

[Starving_Artist]

[ed mcmahon] You are correct, sir. [/ed mcmahon]

[typoink]

This thread is an awesome illustration of how political arguments frequently sound like people hyperbolizing past each other.

I think the OP’s postulate is overstated, but there might be a kernel of truth. Sexists and antifeminists absolutely still exist (even though their numbers are dwindling). They are far more likely to vote R than D. Staunch feminists, likewise, are more likely to vote D than R. That means a female candidate might be slightly less desirable than a male candidate for the Republicans, if they otherwise hold the same conservative values.

In other words, Republican candidates have less to gain by being female. That’s an ugly, uncomfortable, unfortunate statement, and I think it’s mercifully getting less and less true every year. Whether it’s still true to the point of making a meaningful political difference is the question – my gut reaction is that it might be.

[Knorf]

Introducing a rational thought into a political argument? In the pit?

WTF is wrong with you?
:mad:

[Icerigger]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I take it then that you have also concluded that the lack of black faces at Woodstock is proof that the counterculture was racist?

This is yet another favorite (and false) “trope” of the left. There are very good reasons why there aren’t as many black people at Republican conventions or Tea Party rallies as there are at Democratic ones, and they have nothing to do with racist Republican attitudes toward blacks.
[/quote]

bolding mine

Just for my own curiosity how do you explain conservative organizations like this?

http://cofcc.org/category/black-culture/

Council of Conservative Citizens

We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.