Print Story as much as i like to pretend the GOP isn't racist
Politics
By gzt (Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 12:52:25 AM EST) gzt, gop, suck a fuck (all tags)
those fuckers aren't exactly making it easy to pretend otherwise.


In my own state, they had a minor gaffe: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/24/iowa-gop-posts-controversial-facebook-photo.html

okay, roffle doffle, so they apologize, it's a rogue contractor, whatevs, we made a mistake.

but a couple days earlier, they had a comic which is perhaps not as offensive, but is of the same caliber, but they are not yet apologizing and not removing it: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152122084787159&set=a.335425257158.150470.82076817158&type=1 and of course the media isn't covering that part. thanks obamacare.

it's unfortunate in part because there are a lot of sane people in the IA GOP, but they can't tell the racists to go suck a fuck because of the reagan doctrine of never displaying any dissension within the party. but, really, they need to tell those guys to suck a fuck.

< Finally a politician who talks sense on guns. | fermented beverage review: sierra nevada extra IPA, ruthless rye IPA >
as much as i like to pretend the GOP isn't racist | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
never displaying any dissension by wumpus (4.00 / 1) #1 Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:44:16 AM EST
Only RINOs follow Reagan anymore. Haven't they all been purged already?

Wumpus

Sane in the GOP by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #2 Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 10:16:16 AM EST
 I'm sorry if you are still a member of the GOP you are either not sane or an opportunist. I suppose you could just be an authoritarian follower, but I would say that marks you as not sane. The sane people have left. The independents are full of former Republicans. They are the sane conservatives. 




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
at a local level.... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #4 Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 06:33:42 PM EST
...you can't get away with being nuts like you can on the national level because stuff will actually happen and you still have to live there afterwards.

actually, i think you might have a point. the state party has gotten under the control of Paulbots, to the dismay of the establishment, because the sane people started migrating out and insane opportunists hopped on. the relatively sane republican governor is starting a civil war against them.

[ Parent ]
on the local level? by wumpus (2.00 / 0) #5 Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 07:19:06 PM EST
I didn't think anybody who wasn't mayor or a similar head of office would have enough publicity to be visible to anyone but political junkies (which tends to be mostly crazies of all spectra). Maybe I've never lived in a small enough town.

Wumpus

[ Parent ]
i'm thinking more "state-level" by gzt (2.00 / 0) #7 Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 09:58:03 PM EST
municipal elections in this state are non-partisan.

what i mean is that the governor can't be too stupid because the state is rather balanced. and, indeed, the governor isn't.

[ Parent ]
Counterpoint: Marion Barry by lm (4.00 / 1) #6 Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 07:42:20 PM EST
And towns and cities all over the US have their own local equivalents of Rob Ford.

Shifting gears, the Ronulan thing seems to be a major problem in Iowa.

Paul may have lost, but his delegates stayed involved and took over the state party. Members of the establishment watched with increasing frustration as donor phone calls went un-returned. Long-time activists were de-friended on Facebook. The party’s bottom line sagged.

"A lot of those people who came to the caucuses joined our central committee throughout the state," Diana Hansen, the secretary of the Poweshiek County Republican Party, said at a recent party meeting, held at a pizza restaurant in Grinnell. "Those people didn’t stay around to help our candidates."

[Iowa’s Republican governor opens assault on his state party]

The Iowa GOP certainly seems to be in disarray right now. I'm not certain that the folks with control of the party infrastructure right now are all that representative of the Iowa GOP.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
The GOP by jimgon (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 06:17:45 AM EST
 This is what the GOP is in general these days. When the old party machines were dismantled in exchange for more democracy at the party level the elites started losing control. The party elite doesn't control the definition of a Republican (or a Democrat for that matter) it comes down to whoever gets bankrolled best and attracts supporters.




---------------
Technician - "We can't even get decent physical health care. Mental health is like witchcraft here."
[ Parent ]
I'm not convinced of that by lm (2.00 / 0) #10 Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 08:13:59 AM EST
With the arguable exception of GWB, I can't think of a GOP presidential candidate in my lifetime that wasn't the pick of the elite.

Certainly your point about who gets bankrolled the best is relevant. But it's not the whole story. If memory serves correctly, Romney and Giuliani were the best funded in 2008. Yet they kind of fizzled.

The elites are certainly concerned about losing control. The Iowa situation, I think, is exceptional. Between the caucus system in Iowa and a focused effort of dedicated Ron Paul supporters, the Iowa GOP got sandbagged. But not all states use an undemocratic system like a caucus and marginal candidates can't summon consistent efforts across the states that do.

Moreover, between the sequester and the shutdown, it's looking like the old guard is going to halt the advance of the Tea Party wing in the next election cycle unless something changes between now and then. Boehner and McConnel are serving the Tea Party faction of the GOP a great big mug of "I told you so" right now.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
in fairness, that's just a facetious version by the mariner (2.00 / 0) #3 Sun Jan 26, 2014 at 12:41:46 PM EST
of the flowchart designed to piss off liberals. the real one is more like:

have you ever lead     NO      
a lynch mob against --------->  not racist
a black man
    |
    | YES
    v
were you provoked?     YES
(e.g. did he offend --------->  not racist
your daughter's honor?)
    |
    | NO
    v
maybe racist, see instructions
on worksheet 3A.


Overzealous staffer strikes again! by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon Jan 27, 2014 at 12:33:43 AM EST
[and 50k likes on FB]

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

From across the water by anonimouse (2.00 / 0) #11 Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:04:48 AM EST
I have become more disillusioned with both parties. I'm probably a natural Republican, but the following items have caused me to dislike them: On the other hand, the Democrats seemed to have become less totally a blue collar party, but seem to have taken an approach to Constitutional issues entirely different from when they weren't in power.

In summary, if I were Usian, I'd be trying to find an independant with a reasonable chance.


Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL
party for science by gzt (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 08:52:54 AM EST
the democrats have generally been the party of the blue collar and the intellectuals. as the latter, they've typically been the party of science. the GOP has only been the party of science in that they liked defense research and that's still a major source of funding for certain types of science. anyway, points two and three, such as they are, have been the status quo since the election of Reagan.

[ Parent ]
science or Science by riceowlguy (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 09:36:29 AM EST
I am not sure either party cares much about science, here defined as the pursuit of knowledge through experimentation and observation.

The Democratic party is certainly very much more the party of Science, here defined as "that which Scientists do", or that which makes it possible for PhDs to have jobs.

[ Parent ]
well, to my point of the reagan era.... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:55:49 AM EST
...one party certainly became hostile to the results of science in the Reagan era and is hostile still today.

i do agree that neither part cares directly for "science" as such - or, at least, there are people in both that like it, people in both that are more, uh, instrumental about it.

i like the definition of "Science" as "that which Scientists do", but that's not quite the same as "that which makes it possible for PhDs to have jobs". anyway, part of the thing is that science generally requires Science, so ceasing funding for the one causes problems for the other.

[ Parent ]
as much as i like to pretend the GOP isn't racist | 14 comments (14 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback