I would kill a moderate number of people for a t-shirt of the second panel in that strip.
Since you don’t own such a t-shirt yet, I should say your killing has been a trifle too conservative to date.
Well, that depends. Is the election of Steele a one-off or an indication of a party that is changing, even in small ways?
Sounds good to me. But, you gotta have an evil genius pulling all the strings from the shadows. Keyser Soze would be a cool super evil genius type for that, or the “Smoking Man”.
I bet you could just e-mail the author and ask him to put it up on cafe press. Might be able to get it without killing anyone.
Well, where’s the fun in that?
Do you seriously think his selection could have been the result of a groundswell of popular support for an obviously superior leader, that would have occurred irrespective of his race, someone whose skills obviously were not fully demonstrated in a single turn as a lieutenant governor? That’s what “a party that is changing” would have to be to have chosen him. It shouldn’t have to be mentioned that the idiocy of Steele’s statements and actions to date reflect a party that is NOT changing.
Or did they just pick the only black with any national recognition at all they could come up with, to trot out for display whenever their whiteness comes up in conversation?
Most people recognize tokenism when they see it, and give it all the respect it deserves. Don’t you?
Seems to me they should forget about urban blacks and start wooing Hispanics, with the continued message that they’ll be tough on gang violence and promote family values., which should allow for an alliance (albeit an uneasy one) between evangelical whites and Catholic Latins.
Their broadbased uproar of nativism in response to Bush’s proposed immigration reform plan (that counts to his credit, but his failure to implement it doesn’t) won’t soon be forgotten by those whom it targeted. What would a Latino family most reasonably think is the “true” Republican attitude towards them?
Then they might have to sacrifice simplistic racist themes and risk a nuance. Immigration is okay, if the immigrant uses proper channels, obeys the law and works hard.
You guys no doubt heard about Rep. Cantor’s glomming on to an Aerosmith track to promote his cause, yes? Back in the Saddle Again/ I hear Mr Tyler surfaced long enough to say “WTF?” and ixnay.
And there was Eat The Rich, just going a-begging…
No.
Steele has a record in Maryland of party building in not only a blue state, but a blue county (Prince Georges County). It is this sort of experience and effort that the Republicans need to reassert themselves at the national level.
Neither, IMO. I don’t think the election of Steele as RNC chairman is at all remarkable for a party that supported Colin Powell and later Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State. I don’t think the GOP as a political organization has any problem at all anymore with having individual black people in leadership positions, and I think it’s been that way for a while now.
But I also don’t see this situation as the precursor to a major reversal in Republican and Democratic platforms comparable to what we saw during the civil rights movement.
Is *that *what they’re saying about him? :dubious:
Then it’s going to take a damn long time.
Yeah, yeah, they gave blacks a credible stake in the political process. Big freaking deal. The GOP knows what really works: you don’t sell the stake, you sell the shizzle.
So, playing discrimination for laughs. Long walk in the woods, indeed. Hopefully they find themselves on a short pier.
I mean, really, I thought the RNC stopped overtly using slurs in the 50s or 60s. I guess we’re looking at a more honest Republican Party.
My interactions with Republicans on this Board leave me with the impression that they are long on self-esteem and short on critical thinking skills, to put it as kindly as possible. Their “principles” are Bushian in nature: tax less, spend more, and let’s see if we can’t kick the gays around a little while we’re at it. Bush is the Republican Party and the Republican Party is Bush. I’d say they’ve already done a pretty damn good marketing job to pull the wool over at least 20% of Americans’ eyes about that. (Referring to the discrepancy between people who approved of Bush and the larger number of people who voted for the Republican candidate last year.)
ISTM that there’s one Bricker for every 50 Shodans. We notice Bricker more than all the little pubbie-wubbies because he’s been around for a long time, but how many neocons show up for a couple of days/weeks/months, spout some neocon bullshit, and fade away or get banned for throwing around slurs and trolling?
By the way, this “urban-suburban hip-hop setting” marketing campaign seems to be somewhere between immature and inherently offensive to me. What, Obama won because he was more “urban-suburban hip-hop” than McCain? We’re talking about a guy who eats arugula, here. What else could possibly make him more “hip-hop”? Hrmmmm…
Your accusation would make more sense if Hentor the Barbarian were accusing you of breaking a rule. He isn’t. He’s asking you to weigh in on the topic of the actual thread.
In all seriousness, let me know if you have any success getting that T-shirt, because I want one too!
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist
I’d probably agree with this. I’ve met Steele before and I like him, but it will take a lot of work to turn things around for the Republicans right now.
Incidentally, neither the Republican nor the Democratic Party acquitted itself well during the civil rights era - Martin Luther King rather famously remarked that he got a lot more resistance in Daley-controlled Chicago than he did in most places in the South. Both parties had to be shamed into doing the right thing.
Which Republicans on this Board, IYE, support “kicking the gays around a little”? And which are in favor of increased government spending? I definitely agree that all the DoperPubs I can think of are generally in favor of reducing taxes, but I’m drawing a blank on the other two points.
Sure, I’m not talking about principle or heroism here: I’m just talking about who, when the dust settled, ended up with the anti-segregation plank in their platform and who ended up with the pro-segregation plank.
According to Wikipedia, it was Ralph Abernathy who made the remark (in regards to his and King’s efforts in Chicago). Not that it changes the meaning of the sentiment but I had just happened to read that bit earlier today.
Almost all of the ones who show up in any LGBT-rights-related topic. Granted, I probably see this particular issue through shit-colored lenses, but when a party’s platform overtly and unapologetically includes making your life harder just for a little political capital, you tend to see them in a different light. See “civil rights era”, which, by the way, is decidedly not over.
How about the majority of Republicans in and out of the legislature and most message boards and other public circles? $700 billion in free bonuses for bank execs is OK, but $850 billion to create dirty blue-collar jobs is out? Somehow I don’t think the $150B is the important difference to pro-TARPers.
Hostile Dialect,
Hostile Dialect, Narcissist