The request for Senate resolutions on the University of Michigan and the military academies are forms of posturing. Obviously, the Republican-controlled Senate is not going to pass them, and they would have no legal effect even if they did pass.
However, linking Republicans to racism has been effective politics. Not only does it help the Dems get 90%+ of the black vote, it also helps convince racial moderates that Republican are evil. Much of the media has supported this racial attacks, whether fair or not. E.g., on the Jan. 15 CBS Evening News, White House correspondent Bill Plante called Senator Trent Lott’s recent controversial remarks “segregationist,” without even using the word “allegedly,” even though Lott had denied that that was what he meant.
OTOH the Democratic case on the UM is weak, because the amount of adjustment is so large. It is easily explained by the contrast, “12 points for SAT; 20 points for race.” Furthermore the majority of Americans oppose “quotas,” which is Bush’s term for the UM program . If Bush’s spin prevails, the Dems might lose more support than they gain.
What do you think? Which party will gain on this political issue?
Although probably not nearly as effective as the Republican’s so-called “Southern Strategy” has been for them.
So, I have a question for you, december, when Republicans have introduced motions that had no chance of passing when the Democrats were in control (or passed things when they controlled Congress that they knew would be vetoed by Clinton), were they “posturing”? Just want to make sure I understand the definition here.
I would say that, e.g., “sense of the Senate” motions are posturing. Passing a bill with real meaning isn’t posturing even if the President is expected to veto it. However, introducing a bill with no chance of passage would be posturing in my book.
I certainly agree with your implication that Republicans engage in posturihg, just as Democrats do. IIRC various Republicans introduced abortion-related bills during Clinton’s administration, which I would call “posturing.”
I’m glad you mentioned the “Southern strategy.” That disgusting approach was effective politics for perhaps 20 years, but it’s counter-productive today. The OP asks whether the strategy of linking Republicans to racism has outlived its effectiveness. My answer is that the strategy is still effective. I think the Dems will gain more than they lose by attacking Bush on affirmative action, Pickering, etc.
Pointing out real differences is hardly “posturing”; it’s how politics works. Posturing isn’t needed anyway - the Reps have done a quite effective job for the Dems in recent decades anyway, and especially in the last few weeks.
Odd that you still believe Lott’s denials that he meant what he said - you might be the only person outside his own family that blames his downfall on the Democrats.
Yes, the Southern Strategy was and is disgusting. You indirectly acknowledged that it’s still in effect, though. Is that Democratic posturing?
I look forward to Bush’s renomination of Judge Ronnie White to show he meant what he said after Lott’s self-immolation. Why do you think he hasn’t done it? Democratic posturing again?
Yes, Bush has spun the facts of the UM case (Derrick Jackson more bluntly says he lied - we report, you decide). You said so yourself - but how is that Democratic posturing?
Look, pal, you make it easy enough for us without refuting your own arguments right in the OP. You apparently are, however, getting closer to facing the source of the GOP’s “image problem” on race and civil rights a little more squarely, and that deserves congratulation, I suppose.
Of course! Why didn’t I see it! Black folks vote 90% Dem because of Democratic posturing! And the very second they stop, black folks will instantly see that the Republicans are the people who have thier best interests at heart. Same with poor folks! Soon as Democrats knock off this “class war” stuff, poor folks will immediatly see that giving all that money to the rich just enables the rich to trickle down on them, which is great 'cause they’ll get much bigger tips…
And this just in: it ain’t posturing if you mean it. Liberals have meant it for about fifty years. So when did they stop meaning it and start “posturing”? Was it Tuesday, and I didn’t get the memo?