Dean: GOP a "white, Christian party"

[Rudey]

Actually, Democrats are 90% liars, 86% intellectually inferior, and 100% of their candidates lost the last 2 presidential elections.

-Rudey
--Those stats were derived from the same place the other fake Republican statistic was pulled from

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
--Those stats were derived from the same place the other fake Republican statistic was pulled from

Republicans fake statistics? Say it isn't so!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Republicans fake statistics? Say it isn't so!

No, DeltAlum, I was referring to the fake statistic thrown out by a non-Republican on here about the Republican party.

I'm sure it was obvious, but I am OK with clarifying that for you since Democrats often get confused.

-Rudey
--Is this all really necessary?

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Rudey
--Is this all really necessary?

No, but it's funny.

[sugar and spice]

Two interesting statistics I found while while looking for statistics on the religious and racial makeup of political parties . . .

Something around 25 percent of gays and lesbians voted for Bush in the recent election . . . but something like 25 percent of evangelical Christians voted for Kerry. Something strikes me as being very off about both fo those statistics (not that I don't believe they're true -- just that this once again proves that politics will never make any sense to me).


Anyway . . . let's assume we are to debate this topic further. Are we looking at party leaders or are we looking at party makeup as a whole? I think it's hilarious when people think that Condi and Colin (and now Barack Obama) prove that their political party is diverse, and furthermore, that that diversity leads to sensitivity and concern regarding race issues. Let's be reasonable here. That said, I think that issues surrounding race will continue to be ignored until we have a person of color as president, and ditto for religious issues and a non-Christian. (Religion is a trickier issue to pinpoint than race because it's less obvious, but did you realize that we have never had a president who wasn't, at least in name, Christian? And that only one of these was non-Protestant? [Kennedy.]) So clearly the leadership of the party is still important. So where does that put our Colins and Condis and Baracks? Tokens or truly important to the cause, or both?

[Rudey]

Umm Barak is an elected official. He wasn't appointed to anything. He is not the same as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Elaine Chao, or Alberto Gonzales.

And it's just so funny how Democrat leaders have distanced themselves from what Dean said but people are on here trying to justify it.

-Rudey

Originally posted by sugar and spice
Two interesting statistics I found while while looking for statistics on the religious and racial makeup of political parties . . .

Something around 25 percent of gays and lesbians voted for Bush in the recent election . . . but something like 25 percent of evangelical Christians voted for Kerry. Something strikes me as being very off about both fo those statistics (not that I don't believe they're true -- just that this once again proves that politics will never make any sense to me).


Anyway . . . let's assume we are to debate this topic further. Are we looking at party leaders or are we looking at party makeup as a whole? I think it's hilarious when people think that Condi and Colin (and now Barack Obama) prove that their political party is diverse, and furthermore, that that diversity leads to sensitivity and concern regarding race issues. Let's be reasonable here. That said, I think that issues surrounding race will continue to be ignored until we have a person of color as president, and ditto for religious issues and a non-Christian. (Religion is a trickier issue to pinpoint than race because it's less obvious, but did you realize that we have never had a president who wasn't, at least in name, Christian? And that only one of these was non-Protestant? [Kennedy.]) So clearly the leadership of the party is still important. So where does that put our Colins and Condis and Baracks? Tokens or truly important to the cause, or both?

[sugar and spice]

Originally posted by Rudey
Umm Barak is an elected official. He wasn't appointed to anything. He is not the same as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Elaine Chao, or Alberto Gonzales.

And it's just so funny how Democrat leaders have distanced themselves from what Dean said but people are on here trying to justify it.

-Rudey

How does elected versus appointed have anything to do with the fact that these are all influential people of color within their political parties who achieved their current level of success both in spite of and because of their race? Nobody can argue that both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were not appointed to their current positions at least in part because of their race. Bush knew he would be facing criticism about the "old white Christian men" nature of his apointees had he not, thus Colin and Condi and other appointees of color/women were a wise political decision on his part. (Not to mention the fact that they allowed him to appoint old white conservative Christian men to other positions because his opponents could not accurately pull the "He only appoints old white conservative Christian men to positions of power!" card.) Obama, while he is an elected official, has certainly been tokenized within the Democratic party.

Furthermore, Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from a lot of things that are true because they don't want to harm their political careers. As DeltAlum would say . . . that's politics. I would like you to find me the statistics that refute the fact that the GOP is a primarily white, Christian party. You won't find them. Why not? Because this is a primarily white, Christian country. Any political party that does not make race and religion a major part of its platform will probably end up a white, Christian party.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that Dean is wrong -- my understanding is that the GOP IS primarily whiter and more Christian than the rest of this country, and that statistics would bear this out. However, I've been looking a little bit and found nothing one way or the other, so anybody who wants to prove me wrong or right on this one can feel free to post statistics, and in the meantime I'm off to work.



ps: The real question, to me, is whether or not Dean can legitimately offer anything better than the "white, Christian" political party he is denouncing. Unless he plans to overhaul the Democratic party, I kind of doubt he can.

[Rudey]

A token is merely symbolic. Obama was elected. The DNC did not just put Obama out there because he is a token. That is ridiculous.

Do you have proof that they were appointed because of their race? That is also ridiculous too and you have no proof but supposedly you make this claim.

And now after someone else posts a fake statistic that you support, instead of offering proof (which you admit you can't), you say others should offer proof contrary.

Well how about this:

Democrats are 86% racist, 46% rapist, 96% thieves, 75% killers. Of course it's true. Of course you can't provide statistics otherwise.

-Rudey
--"It's funny"

Originally posted by sugar and spice
How does elected versus appointed have anything to do with the fact that these are all influential people of color within their political parties who achieved their current level of success both in spite of and because of their race? Nobody can argue that both Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were not appointed to their current positions at least in part because of their race. Bush knew he would be facing criticism about the "old white Christian men" nature of his apointees had he not, thus Colin and Condi and other appointees of color/women were a wise political decision on his part. (Not to mention the fact that they allowed him to appoint old white conservative Christian men to other positions because his opponents could not accurately pull the "He only appoints old white conservative Christian men to positions of power!" card.) Obama, while he is an elected official, has certainly been tokenized within the Democratic party.

Furthermore, Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from a lot of things that are true because they don't want to harm their political careers. As DeltAlum would say . . . that's politics. I would like you to find me the statistics that refute the fact that the GOP is a primarily white, Christian party. You won't find them. Why not? Because this is a primarily white, Christian country. Any political party that does not make race and religion a major part of its platform will probably end up a white, Christian party.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced that Dean is wrong -- my understanding is that the GOP IS primarily whiter and more Christian than the rest of this country, and that statistics would bear this out. However, I've been looking a little bit and found nothing one way or the other, so anybody who wants to prove me wrong or right on this one can feel free to post statistics, and in the meantime I'm off to work.



ps: The real question, to me, is whether or not Dean can legitimately offer anything better than the "white, Christian" political party he is denouncing. Unless he plans to overhaul the Democratic party, I kind of doubt he can.

[DeltaSigStan]

Originally posted by Sistermadly
And using that logic, we understand why people insist on calling NPC/NIC orgs "WGLOs".

I say I'm in a white frat all the time.....but that's just to spite the Asians who call me white washed

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by valkyrie
Stop it! You're interfering with the republican fantasy that they're actually diverse!

You're right, after all, the Democratic party is simply full of non-whites at the highest level.

-RC
--I'll be willing to bet that the D's are 80+% Christian too . . . after all, the NATION is well over 80%, isn't it?

[DeltAlum]

Here's a question that is slightly off the topic.

Can ethnicity (other than caucasion) help a candidate in a geographic area that doesn't match her/his racial/ethnic background?

Here's the case in point.

The present Denver mayor is a caucasion male -- we're going to disregard him for just that reason.

The previous mayor for several terms, Wellington Webb, is a black man.

The mayor before him for several terms, Federico Pena, is a hispanic male.

Both are Democrats. Webb is powerful in the party and Pena was in Clinton's cabinet.

The City of Denver demographics when both were elected were roughly:

7% African American
13% Hispanic
1% Native American
3% Asian
76% other -- mostly caucasion.

With those demos, why would Pena and Webb ever be elected? Does it fly in the face of the apparent assumption that "White Christians" (or white anything) will be presumed to vote for a white Christian?

Could it mean that many white people vote for a minority candidate to appear more "liberal" or non-prejudiced.

Or, could it mean that sometimes the electorate just votes for the best person?

(I live in a surburb and don't vote in Denver elections, but in my opinion, both Pena and Webb were outstanding mayors. I think the present mayor is also doing a really good job as well.)

Granted that Colorado politics can be a little strange. We have a "Bush Republican" governor in his second term and went for Bush in the recent election, but voted in a Democrat legislature majority (It had been Republican before the last election), and Democratic U.S. Senator and House of Representatives Hispanic brother team. The newly elected Senator replaced the only Native American U.S. Senator (who retired) who was a former Democrat, turned Republican a couple of terms ago.

[Rudey]

Money.

-Rudey

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Here's a question that is slightly off the topic.

Can ethnicity (other than caucasion) help a candidate in a geographic area that doesn't match her/his racial/ethnic background?

Here's the case in point.

The present Denver mayor is a caucasion male -- we're going to disregard him for just that reason.

The previous mayor for several terms, Wellington Webb, is a black man.

The mayor before him for several terms, Federico Pena, is a hispanic male.

Both are Democrats. Webb is powerful in the party and Pena was in Clinton's cabinet.

The City of Denver demographics when both were elected were roughly:

7% African American
13% Hispanic
1% Native American
3% Asian
76% other -- mostly caucasion.

With those demos, why would Pena and Webb ever be elected? Does it fly in the face of the apparent assumption that "White Christians" (or white anything) will be presumed to vote for a white Christian?

Could it mean that many white people vote for a minority candidate to appear more "liberal" or non-prejudiced.

Or, could it mean that sometimes the electorate just votes for the best person?

(I live in a surburb and don't vote in Denver elections, but in my opinion, both Pena and Webb were outstanding mayors. I think the present mayor is also doing a really good job as well.)

Granted that Colorado politics can be a little strange. We have a "Bush Republican" governor in his second term and went for Bush in the recent election, but voted in a Democrat legislature majority (It had been Republican before the last election), and Democratic U.S. Senator and House of Representatives Hispanic brother team. The newly elected Senator replaced the only Native American U.S. Senator (who retired) who was a former Democrat, turned Republican a couple of terms ago.

[valkyrie]

DA, I could be wrong, but I think the white people who live in a city like Denver (i.e., me) tend to be more liberal and vote democratic. The odds of me voting for a republican are slim and his good friend none (I've only done so once that I can recall), regardless of anyone's color -- and I suspect most youngish, urban people have a similar mindset.

[lifesaver]

Originally posted by honeychile
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Catholic going to a Methodist University somewhat akin to a Methodist going to Notre Dame? The analogy just doesn't hold as much water as you'd like.

I'd be thrilled to correct you. Visit the campus and you'll understand what I am talking about. SMU is non-sectarian in its teachings. Most prodestant affilliated univeristies are that way. People dont go to SMU because they are Methodist. Just like people dont go to Trinity because they are presbyterian. I dont knwo if the same holds true for Notre Dame.

People go to SMU because they are rich. My comment wasnt a shot at SMU. It was a shot at my own chapter there. (But I'm sure they'll appreciate you getting their back and all.) They were not diverse and claimed to be (see the connection now?). With the makeup of SMU being 20% minority, they had no people of color in the chapter. I also dont tend to agree that catholics are a 'recognized minority' for the sake of diversity stats as these fellas were claiming.

Point is that they were an all white chapter claiming they were diverse bedcause they had a catholic. Thats BS. Just like your analogy was. An all white chapter at Notre Dame that had accepted a Methodist wouldnt be diverse either.

[Tom Earp]

Ah, once again, someone comes to Earpspeak or typoing! Late Nite Bro?

I did not realize since I think 1958 that LXA was a White Fraternity. Oh, I think that was changed Then to accept Members of All Colors. Of course, I joined/Affiliated in 1967.

But, While I can only Speak for My Chapter for who has been Initiated. But I have ment Brothers from all over who arent Lily White!

While LXA was not the first to Start a Colony on a HBC, TKE and SP did but did not last for a lot of reasons. I am hopes that We will!

Now, I live in a Repuplican State except for the County I live In which is Dem.

It really doesnt make any difference, when they throw the Cloak on, they all become the same!