The problem is that this advice is equivalent to saying Republicans need to listen to why liberals and mainstream Democrats don’t want to vote for them, because that’s mainly who the black voters are, right? What are they chances they will be receptive to most of the suggestions along those lines?
They are victims of cognitive dissonance. Their central myth is that they represent the majority of Americans, or at least the real Americans. Their performance at the polls belies this, of course, so they are compelled to look for other factors. Personally, I think this is a main component amongst the more honest Republicans, who are convinced that voter fraud is rampant and a determining factor in electoral results. They can’t be losing fairly, so the Dems must be cheating.
The cynical subset of the party knows better but are perfectly happy to exploit these beliefs.
That all of this simply underscores the crucial importance of cognitive dissonance as the number one threat to the Republic is something I need not emphasize.
Check out this television ad from a Republican in 1960 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAlZHfaksQM
When I was a kid and watched Republican Conventions, every other word from the speakers was “Party of Lincoln.” Haven’t heard that much lately. They might think about what would happen if that became their mantra again - it might give them a clue.
They’ve evolved, now they are the party of Cadillac and BMW.
Didn’t they make a big deal at their latest get together, about how it’s not what they are saying, but how they are saying it?
How can they possibly be that deluded? It IS what you’re saying, about abortion, about gay marriage, about immigration.
How is it possible they still haven’t figured out you cannot turn back time?
He will be a hoot to watch in the GOP primaries
I would venture to say, elbows, that it is because they listen only to Rush Limbaugh, et alia, who continually assure them that they are in the majority. Also, many of these Republicans live in rural areas where the majority of people do think like them. They don’t realize that the population of several of these counties (or an entire state like Wyoming or Alaska) is just a fraction of the population of a big city like LA.
Maybe they should try to really push Lincoln’s vision, of sending the Blacks back to Africa. 
I guess I’m not terribly surprised that the son of one arrogant morally bankrupt asshole who was named after another turns out to be one himself. I don’t know what’s sadder, that Paul is such a condescending smug little prick or that the people of Kentucky were stupid enough not only to vote for him, but for the mutant turtle McConnell.
At least he’s not a ninja.
I can’t watch Daily Show clips from here but I found some clips of selections from the speech on YouTube. The laughter of the crowd at Paul’s fundamental ignorance and ineffectual flailing is a beautiful thing and wholly deserved.
I can’t see it either, bummer!
Guy from Kentucky appears stupid in a racist way: Shocker of the Century :rolleyes:
Well, he certainly didn’t have to go. Plenty of presidential candidates didn’t/won’t go. His “survival” certainly did not depend on it, and he had little to gain by going.
I agree it’s condescending and inaccurate. However, the only possible way their bubble will be penetrated is by speaking to crowds who are eager to disabuse them of those notions. Nobody is better off when politicians avoid their detractors via “protest zones” or pretending they don’t exist.
Dude, was there any doubt that the racists in the GOP were not gonna vote for Romney? He didn’t shore up his support with his “real audience” because he didn’t need to. I think you are being a little too cynical here. There is very little reason to think he went there for any other reason than to try to pick up some votes by making his case. Romney, IIRC, went there and said basically the same bullshit he always says. It was obviously ineffective, but to castigate any politician for speaking to an unfriendly audience seems a bit unfair and misguided. As if saying hostile, bigoted, and stupid things in the media and behind their constituents backs is better than saying it to their face, and having to face tough questions in response.
Why is it naive to think that a GOP candidate would speak to a Black audience the same way, and for the same reasons that he would speak to a White one? The reality is if you want to have power as a constituency or lobbying group of any type, you need to have your voice heard. Given that this country hasn’t yet realized how poisonous and terrible the GOP party is, we need to accept that many of them will be elected. I would much rather those elected officials speak at HBCUs, and go to NAACP events than have them ignore the invitations since the practical reality of doing so usually hurts those organizations more than it does the politician.
Now as far I why I will give these guys some credit, I think most politicians don’t want to be in a situation where they are facing anyone who doesn’t adore them. All of these guys spend 90% of their free time raising money, or doing things that will enable them to get more money or power. Rand Paul will likely gain neither by talking at an HBCU. It’s clearly not particularly self-serving or advantageous to do so. The audience there can’t vote for him, these events typically are not covered nationally, and he took a bunch of questions from smart people who vehemently disagree with him. I think he deserves a modicum of credit for taking that risk. Now that doesn’t mean I would ever entertain the idea of voting for him, but at least one can argue he is not completely writing off a good chunk of the country as not not worthy of his time or consideration.
Did I say trying is all that matters? I just said it matters. Let’s pretend the GOP puts out an internal directive that no elected member should speak to the NAACP, or at any HBCU. Do you think the candidate, the political discourse, or the institutions themselves benefit at all from such an arrangement? Should those who are against gay marriage not speak to HRC? Should people in favor of strict gun control never speak to the NRA? Of course not.
Now who is being condescending?
No it wasn’t. Bush was called out several times by then NAACP chief, Julain Bond, for not attending their conventions. Bush openly snubbed them, saying:
So yes, while Bush did at one point speak to them, he got all butthurt when they called him names, and decided to freeze them out.
I wasn’t talking about his personal survival. Please keep up.
OK, but any clue that he was listening to them, or that he will be disabused of any of his notions? Time will tell, but my bet’s on ‘no.’
Come, come. 2012 wasn’t all that long ago. Surely you remember - it was widely commented on at the time - that Romney kept on feeling the need to shore up his base well after the time when most candidates would have been tacking back to the center.
And the consensus was that the need was real - the base didn’t really trust Romney, so he had to all but out-base the base.
And while they weren’t going to vote for Obama, they could have chosen to stay home in larger numbers than they did. In discussions of electoral strategy, the fact that people can choose to not bother to vote, rather than choose between the candidates, is often overlooked.
In Canada the Daily Show and Colbert Report are at watch.thecomedynetwork.ca. Their video player is a piece of crap, but it’s better than nothing.
The problem I have with fiascoes of this ilk where the politician makes an effort and just looks absurdly out of touch isn’t the fact that the politicians are out of touch but rather that these are the best candidates that the parties can find.
We all have wacko friends/acquaintances/family members/coworkers/etc. but would you in a million years let those wackos speak on your behalf? Never. You’d pick someone likable, sensible, articulate, intelligent, etc. And that’s just out of the meager pool of candidates within your own social circle. The republican party has a much larger talent pool to draw from and yet they can’t find someone both loyal to party allegiances AND manage to not stick their foot in their mouth, or have a sex scandal, or be a pathological liar, or…
knockknock* Excuse me, several thousand zombies in dark suits are here to see you.
“I have the greatest affection for them [Negroes] but I know they’re not going to make it for 500 years. They aren’t. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they’re dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don’t live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.”