Republican Party Minorities Beware!

Once upon a time in United States history, the expression “racist Democratic Party” would have been considered redundant, because it was a given that the Democratic Party was a bastion of racism.

After all, back during the antebellum period of the 19th Century, it was the Democratic Party that resisted the end to slavery, that during the 20th Century, resisted civil rights legislation that would give equal rights to minorities, that resisted desegregation (with President Truman being an exception).

Yet, the Democratic Party managed to reinvent itself in a way that made it attractive to minority voters. Whereas the Republican Party promoted conservative values as being helpful to all Americans, the Democratic Party claimed that its liberal values did more good for minorities.

So, what happens when minority politicians don’t believe the latter claim? Answer: They get a taste of the racism that lies under the surface of the Democratic Party.

In a column published by The Daily Beast, Peter Beinart explains the reason for the growth of racism within the Democratic Party:

If Dick Harpootlian were a Republican, liberals would be jumping over one another to call him a bigot. In 2002 Harpootlian called Lindsey Graham, then running for a South Carolina Senate seat, “light in the loafers,” thus fueling a nasty whispering campaign about Graham’s sexual orientation. Last Friday he struck again, telling activists to “send Nikki Haley”—South Carolina’s Indian-American governor—“back to wherever the hell she came from.”

But Harpootlian isn’t a Republican. Until he retired last Saturday, he was chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. He made his comments about Haley at the party’s annual dinner, just before Joe Biden took the stage. And as a result, the liberal response has been muted. So far, neither Biden nor Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, whose candidacy for a South Carolina congressional seat has gained national attention, has repudiated Harpootlian’s comments. And for now, at least, conservatives are just about the only ones asking them to.

That’s a problem, because unless offenses like Harpootlian’s are slapped down hard, Democratic Party bigotry is likely to get worse. The reason is simple: the Republican Party is getting more diverse. Stung by its disastrous electoral showings among Americans who are neither white, Anglo, straight, nor male, the GOP has finally begun to broaden its candidate base. The party now boasts an African-American senator from South Carolina, Cuban-American senators from Florida and Texas, Indian-American governors in South Carolina and Louisiana, and Mexican-American governors in Nevada and New Mexico. In all likelihood, 2016 will witness the first-ever serious minority candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination. And it’s a good bet that either a minority or a woman will find a place on the Republican ticket. Prominent openly gay Republican politicians are only a matter of time.

In an open letter to Republican Senatorial candidate Gabriel Gomez, political commentator Jennifer C. Braceras says the following:

Congratulations, Gabriel Gomez. You just earned yourself a spot on top of the Democratic National Committee’s hit list.

It’s not just because you’re the Republican nominee for Senate. Or because you’re a Washington outsider who threatens to prevent lifelong political hack Ed Markey from becoming “Senator for life.”

It’s not even because you’re a Boston Marathon-running, former Navy SEAL who exudes the kind of patriotism that embarrasses many liberals today.

No. The real reason Democrats regard you as public enemy No. 1 can be summed up in two words: Republican Latino.

You’re new to politics, so I’ll be blunt. Democrats may dislike Republicans, but they despise Republican minorities.

The simple reason is, of course, electoral. Crucial to Democratic success is a trifecta of subgroups: minorities (including Latinos), young people, and women. This coalition has been described as a three-legged stool. A Republican who can even begin to crack one of the legs can potentially knock the stool over.

The latest minority politician to feel the wrath of the Democratic Party is U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).  During an interview on the ABC News program “This Week”, former governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) attacked Senator Cruz’s ethnicity by saying that the Senator shouldn’t be defined as a Hispanic.  Here is an excerpt from that interview:

Former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson joined ABC News for a web interview after his appearance on the “This Week” roundtable on Sunday, answering viewer questions about his time as governor,  his experience meeting with the Taliban, and his thoughts on Korean ruler Kim Jong-Un. When asked about Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Richardson expressed his distaste for the senator.

“I’m not a fan. I know [Ted Cruz is] sort of the Republican latest flavor. He’s articulate. He seems to be charismatic, but I don’t like his politics. I think he introduces a measure of incivility in the political process. Insulting people is not the way to go. But I guess he’s a force in the Republican political system, but I’m not a fan.”

ABC News: Do you think he represents most Hispanics with his politics?

“No, no. He’s anti-immigration. Almost every Hispanic in the country wants to see immigration reform. No, I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic.

Now, Gov. Richardson is back-peddling, claiming that he didn’t mean what he said about Sen. Cruz not being a Hispanic.

Perhaps the expression “racist Democratic Party” isn’t as redundant as it was a century ago, but it certainly isn’t an oxymoron, as minority politicians in the Republican Party are finding out.

 

Shortlink:

Posted by on May 7, 2013.
Filed under Democrats, Politicians, Politics, Race.
Tagged with: .
A refugee from Planet Melmac masquerading as a human. Loves cats*. In fair condition. A fixer-upper. Warranty still good. Not necessarily sane.[*Joke in reference to the TV sit-com "Alf", which featured a space alien who liked to eat cats. Disclaimer: No cats were harmed in the writing and posting of this profile.]

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • herddog505

    You just don’t understand. democrats love and welcome people of all genders, races, creeds, and sexual orientations.

    As long as the toe the party line.

    Now, if they DON’T, why! they aren’t “genuine” minorities at all. After all, what self-respecting political party would have ANYTHING to do with Uncle Toms, Twinkies, Oreos, Coconuts, and other sell-outs?

    See how that works?

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      Coconut? That’s a new one…

      But you’re right – from what I’ve seen it’s usually the left which is intolerant of disagreement from the orthodoxy.

      • herddog505

        I heard it in relation to Marco Rubio.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Ever get a sort of ‘Twilight Zone’ feeling, that this isn’t the world we’re supposed to have? That people just aren’t behaving the way they should?

          Of course, depending on what the real world was supposed to be like, that could be either a good or bad thing…

  • Par4Course

    As Justice Thomas said, to be elected, a black presidential candidate would have to be “approved by the elites” in the media and in society [as BHO undoubtedly was and is]. No Hispanic, black or other minority Republican candidate will ever get such approval. The Dems and their lap-dog media hate Cruz, Rubio, Tim Scott and all other minority politicians who don’t toe the liberal line.

    • rushthis

      The Southern Strategy the GOP used for decades is why you have no minority vote. Learn your history.

      • jim_m

        Learn your history moron.

        In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” . . .

        But the big breakthrough, to the extent that there was one, came in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower won 48 percent of the vote there, compared to Adlai Stevenson’s 52 percent. He carried most of the “peripheral South” —Virginia, Tennessee, Texas and Florida — and made inroads in the “Deep South,” almost carrying South Carolina and losing North Carolina and Louisiana by single digits.

        The point of all this is not to deny that Richard Nixon may have invited some nasty fellows into his political bed. The point is that the GOP finally became the region’s dominant party in the least racist phase of the South’s entire history, and it got that way by attracting most of its votes from the region’s growing and confident communities—not its declining and fearful ones. The myth’s shrillest proponents are as reluctant to admit this as they are to concede that most Republicans genuinely believe that a color-blind society lies down the road of individual choice and dynamic change, not down the road of state regulation and unequal treatment before the law.

        Perhaps that is what really bothers the left: The fact that conservatives are winning by not appealing to racial stereotypes, that conservatives want to judge people by their abilities and not their skin color.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          You are not supposed to question the wisdom of your betters, and much less question their version of history.

          That said – you’re right. I really believe there’s a hell of a lot of projection going on when accusations of racism come from the left.

          • jim_m

            The “southern strategy” argument is a great example of Post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking. The south was racist therefore the GOP must be racist to be gaining influence there. The left is not terribly intelligent and they are always falling into logical fallacies.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I wouldn’t argue that the South is free of racism – but what I’ve seen living down here for the last 30 years is that the racism isn’t coming from where the left thinks it does.

            And on that – I’m shutting up, lest I be accused of racism.

  • jim_m

    There is no greater proof of the racism that is deeply embedded in the democratic party and the left than the bigoted way they treat conservative minorities. Their behavior shows their claims to tolerance to be nothing but a facade which covers the realty of their hate filled hearts

  • Hank_M

    Bill Richardson is right, although not for the warped reasons he states, when he says that ” No, I don’t think he [Cruz] should be defined as a Hispanic.”

    If Cruz has to be defined, then Cruz should be defined as an American.

    Of course, if we all try to unite by our commonality, then the left will have that much more trouble pitting us against each other. And if that happens, people might start to notice that the left doesn’t have anything to offer except division, hate and envy.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      “And if that happens, people might start to notice that the left doesn’t have anything to offer except division, hate and envy.”

      I think that’s already happening, thanks to Reid, Pelosi and Obama. If what they propose doesn’t work, they immediately look for someone to blame. If something ‘unexpected’ happens, they look for someone to blame. If there isn’t someone readily apparent, they’ll find some target and blame them.

      (Like in the old USSR. If a 5-year plan didn’t work, it wasn’t because it was a plan that couldn’t work in the first place – it was the wreckers and spoilers that caused it to fail.)

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      An as an addendum to this – when I was a kid I was taught that our country was great because of our ‘melting pot’ heritage – take the good of each group that made up the US, and leave the bad behind, rather like making steel. You get the ingredients, mix them together and heat them up, and the heat combines them to make something stronger than any could be individually.

      Now it seems like we’re taking a ‘salad bowl’ approach – with all cultures having something unique which supposedly must be held onto tightly so they remain distinct from the others and NOT get lost in the bowl.

      Meh. I think I prefer the ‘melting pot’. Salad has some distinct problems when it comes to cohesion, (unless you’re talking Jello salads or the like) and I’ve yet to see any that’s got a fair amount of structural integrity. I like the concept of us being ‘Americans’ – not hypenated-Americans.

  • rushthis

    Wow….the writer completely yada yada yadaed over the last 60 years of GOP race politics (You know, Lee Atwaters Southern Strategy?). The Democratic party didn’t reinvent themselves with a marketing plow (Rence), they had a President (JFK) who fought for the Civil Rights Act and the Racists Democrats (Now called Dixiecrats) switched to the GOP (Strum Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc.)

    It’s fools who ignore these facts, or simply do not know them. I promise you the people who vote against Republicans know these facts. Rand Paul made a fool of himself at Howard University assuming his audience didn’t know these facts, and now so has David Robinson

    • jim_m

      Liar.

      The dems filibustered the Civil Rights act. The dems started the KKK, the dems formed the Confederate government lock, stock and barrel.

      Go educate yourself on how the GOP has actually won the south by appealing to it least racist components and the left has held on to its position by appealing to racial division.

      Stop looking at people’s skin color as the first method of judging other people and then come talk to the rest of us about racism. You have a lot to learn about it from examining your own behavior.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        “Stop looking at people’s skin color as the first method of judging other people and then come talk to the rest of us about racism.”

        That’s the thing that really pisses me off sometimes. MLK wanted us to be a ‘color-blind’ society, with people judged by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. I’ve tried to live my life according to that precept – but that’s not good enough.

        Now I’m supposed to judge people by the color of their skin, and if the melanin content is high enough I’m supposed to excuse any failings in the content of their character that may be very apparent, and NEVER criticize any actions, for fear of being called ‘racist’.

        The left, in their guise of ‘helping’, have caused a lot of on-going misery. That it was done with ‘the best of intentions’ doesn’t matter one damn bit – what was long needed was an impartial assessment of whether what they were doing was actually helping or hurting the black community.

        But then, the crack dealer doesn’t much care whether their product helps the user – all they want is the money, or in the democrat’s case all they wanted were the votes. They could care less what’s happening as long as it could be used as campaign fodder.

    • jim_m

      It’s fools who ignore these facts

      It’s fools who ignore their own history and impute it upon their ideological opponents.

    • EricSteel

      “…the Racists Democrats (Now called Dixiecrats) switched to the GOP (Strum Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc.) .”

      This is the standard leftwing narrative. Because they can name TWO Democrats who voted against Civil Rights and later switched parties, then that means that every Democrat who opposed Civil Rights switched parties.

      The problem is that it ignores the fact that the majority of Democrats did not change parties. For example, of the 21 Senate Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only 1 (Strom Thurmond) changed parties. The other 20 went to their graves as Democrats, many getting re-elected for years afterward.

      If Strom Thurmond was a racist for voting against the Civil Rights Act, then so was Robert Byrd, Al Gore Sr., William Fulbright, and all of the other Democrats who stayed Democrat and so were all of the Democrat voters who continued to re-elect them.

      Explain that Rushthis.

      • Brucehenry

        As I’ve explained before, the Southern Strategy wasn’t ABOUT getting “prominent” racist Democrats to switch parties. It was about getting white racist VOTERS to cast their votes for Republicans. Jesse Helms didn’t enter the Senate until 1972. Before that he was the guy who did editorials on WRAL-TV 5 here in Raleigh. He was a racist as a Democrat, and when there were no more racists running as Democrats, he started voting for Republicans. Then he ran for Senate as one, and won.

        Racist Democrat voters of the 60s and 70s stayed Democrats until they: 1. died; 2. stopped being racists, or at least accepted the new reality, or 3. became Republican voters, if not necessarily registered Republicans. They also, as the years passed, became less and less overtly racist, and more inclined to use phrases like “forced busing,” “welfare queens,”and “racial quotas” than “state’s rights” and “segregation forever.”

        “Prominent” racist Democrats such as Byrd and Fulbright moderated their positions in their twilight years. In Byrd’s case, his twilight lasted for decades.

        I’ve lived in the South and dealt with these folks all my life. Guys like Trent Lott and Haley Barbour might fool some of you rubes, but they don’t fool me.

  • Conservachef

    I know [Ted Cruz is] sort of the Republican latest flavor. He’s articulate. He seems to be charismatic…

    Gotta love those backhanded compliments. I shouldn’t be surprised though, considering the current VP called the current POTUS an “articulate, clean, bright African American.”

    • Jwb10001

      Like an articulate Latino is some sort of anomaly, a clean, bright articulate African American is so very difficult to find in our country. Put those words in a conservatives mouth and all hell breaks loose.

      • jim_m

        The left cannot afford to be judged by their own standard. It’s high time we held them to it.

    • Hank_M

      Good catch.
      Biden took a lot of grief for his remarks.
      Wonder why?

  • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

    According to Richardson, Hispanics who do not toe the party line are not “genuine” Hispanics. This is simply the Democrats taking the same position they have traditionally had on blacks, that black Republicans or conservatives are not “authentically” black.

    The Democrat Party is the unrivaled party of racism in the 21st. century.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      “Dammit, you WILL stay on the Democratic Plantation or we’ll send the dogs after you! You are OURS – and don’t you even THINK otherwise!”

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      As well as the 20th, and 19th centuries.

  • Demonic Weasel

    Oh come now, the premise of this article is silly. Of course Democrats can be racist, have been the party of institutionalized racism in the past, and are still sometimes racist today. But the idea that they hate Republican minorities for being minorities is demonstrably false, I’m pretty sure that it’s just Republicans that they object to.

    Look at the question that Richardson was asked, does Cruz represent Hispanics? Richardson’s answer was kind of awkward, but he was clearly saying, that he doesn’t think that Cruz represents Hispanics on policy across the board, or well at all. Happens to be true. But that’s a position on policy, not on ethnic stereotyping.