The Wide Diversity in the GOP’s 2014 Freshmen Class

A few days ago I noted that an American Indian got elected to the state legislature in Montana as a Republican. But the fact is, the 2014 GOP freshman field was more diverse than ever and many of those candidates won their elections. Minorities took seats as Republicans from coast to coast.

In Montana, G. Bruce Meyers, a member of the Chippewa-Cree Tribe and a Republican, took a seat in the State House and took it away from the Democrats who have held that seat for decades and decades.

But Meyers isn’t alone. A recent New York Times report notes that the GOP took control of 69 of the 99 statehouse chambers (both House and Senates) this year and many of these new and returning Republicans are minorities.

“They include, the paper noted on November 29, “Jill Upson, the first black Republican woman elected to the West Virginia House; Victoria Seaman, the first Latina Republican elected to the Nevada Assembly; Beth Martinez Humenik, whose win gave Republicans a one-seat edge in the Colorado Senate; and Young Kim, a Korean-American woman who was elected to the California Assembly, helping to break the Democratic supermajority in the State Legislature.”

And that was just the first few mentioned. The story goes on to mention many more African Americans, latinos, and other minorities across the country.

Several minorities (and many women) went to Washington from the GOP, as well. Mia Love from Utah becomes the first black women elected to Congress from Utah–Democrat OR Republican. In Tim Scott the GOP already had the first black Senator from South Carolina since reconstruction.

The GOP also has the first and second Indian-Americans as a governors with Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Nikki Haley inSouth Carolina. Not to mention Susana Martinez, an Hispanic woman as Governor of New Mexico.

In any case, the point here is that it is a canard that the GOP is only for old, white, men and this year that could not be more true.

The Communist Pope Now Saying Christians Just Like Islamist Terrorists
Call It By Its True Name: Obamaville
  • Walter_Cronanty

    They’re Republican. So, they’re not female, black, Indian, Korean or Latino enough. Try to keep up, Warner.

    • LOL. I know, right?

      • Walter_Cronanty

        Well, you’re part of the white, male, patriarchal, oppressor, privileged class, living in your suburban, moated McMansion, so, being the understanding, empathetic, generous person I am, I’ll cut you some slack. Do it again, and the SEIU will be storming your gated community.

  • Commander_Chico

    WB – Mia Love and Young Kim

    WNB the rest.

    • Retired military

      Nancy Pelosi monopolizes your dreams Cheeko

  • 914

    To many racist spoil the dem play book..


    Good thing they are because as of today the GOP is not exactly the rainbow coalition.

    As of today:

    House of Representatives:


    42 African Americans

    25 Hispanics

    15 Asian Americans


    0 African Americans

    5 Hispanics

    0 Asian Americans



    1 Hispanic

    1 Asian American


    1 Hispanic

    • jim_m

      Are you such a fucking imbecile that you are incapable of reading the story and realizing that it speaks about the incoming class of elected officials?

      Wait, I suppose that is pretty obvious. Never mind.


        Well sure, that is why I included the line, “Good thing they are”, in reference to the change you are referencing.

        I don’t know why that would compel you to address me with an obscenity.

        • jim_m

          Because your comment was BS. If you had your way you would punish people for trying to be more inclusive because they are behaving contrary to the pigeon holes that you are comfortable with them being in.
          You want people to be unchanging so you can hate them for being different than you.

          • Democrats in Congress are pretty homogenous. They are all anti-American and super rich, regardless of color and gender.

          • Commander_Chico

            Let’s just say all of Congress is homogenous – they are all super rich and work for their wealth, not the average American.

          • jim_m

            Yeah, because Jefferson, Adams and Washington were all average Americans.

          • Brucehenry

            Were those three ever Congressmen?

          • jim_m

            Yes. They all served in the Continental Congress.

          • Brucehenry

            But not in the Congress established by our current Constitution.

          • jim_m

            The criticism could be extended to politicians in general. There is no logical reason to limit that critique to Congress. The fact of the matter is that Congress, and all of our elected government , has for the most part been selected from the elite. At the time of the founding only land owners could vote. They elected their own.

            Only the wealthy could afford to leave a business for even the short periods of time that they did back in the 18th century.

          • jim_m

            And that is a total cop out. Are you going to argue that the Continental Congress was not part of the US government? That anything prior to the US Constitution is irrelevant to our society, our government and our laws?

            You might as well state that the Declaration of Independence has no meaning for us today because it wasn’t signed by a body that was authorized by the Constitution. Or that the Articles of Confederation are unimportant in the history of the US for the same reason.

            Your objection is ridiculous on its face.

          • Brucehenry

            Calm down Jim not that big a deal.

            Of course the Continental Congress has historical relevance. My only point was that none of the three mentioned were members of the House of Representatives nor the Senate. The remark was made in the context of one commenter suggesting, or implying, that it would be kinda nice if the Congress wasn’t entirely composed of millionaires and multimillionaires.

            BTW while it is true that members of Congress are often wealthy, there are exceptions. I believe Joe Biden’s net worth was less than a million when he was sworn in as VP. NC’s own nutbar Congresswoman Renee Elmers was an RN when she took office, although I think her husband is a doctor and may for all I know be wealthy.

          • jim_m

            And my point, which you were too dim to understand, was that this is nothing new.

    • Vagabond661

      The obvious reason is more blacks are democrats than republican, much less conservative.

      The credit would have to go to the BS the Democrats have given the minorites for lo these many years. Democrats need a welfare voting class. It’s what keeps them in power. It’s why they are gung ho on amnesty.

      After trillions of dollars, the only people better off are Democrat politicians and the government which by the way recently took in a record for revenue. And yet, minorities will vote democrat, quietly sitting in poverty accepting their inevitable fate of staying in poverty.

      The best welfare program is a job. Not my quote, but it’s true. Old white guys know this. Don’t you wish everybody did?

      • jim_m

        This idiot probably hasn’t worked a day in his life.


        “The obvious reason is more blacks are democrats than republican, much less conservative.”

        Don’t forget the Hispanics and Asians.

        Hey, the GOP has an opportunity. They purged a lot of the extremist elements of the party in the last election (or at least put a temporary muzzle on them) and emerged victorious. Additionally, it proved irrelevant in the few places that it did emerge (see Iowa).

        Of course the House of Representatives offers a clear illustration of the true divide in this country, which is the chasm between rural and urban regions.
        There are districts on both sides of the aisle in which candidates are virtually unopposed.

        The 2016 election will be very interesting, especially now that both sides have implemented very sophisticated systems for targeted advertising. This was especially true in Colorado where the GOP utilized the same tactics that the Democrats used so effectively in 2012. The “right” pitch to a demographic that could be swayed. If a commercial ran on television in your zip code it most likely concentrated on a message that was specific to that region.

        The next election will be more dependant on the effective application of quantitative analysis than on any issue or issues.

        • jim_m

          You overestimate the impact of gotv operations. They are important but they are not the whole election. The dems face serious structural problems having alienated white working class voters. Obama’s appeal amongst blacks doesn’t transfer to the party as a whole (sure they vote dem but they don’t turn out like they do for him).

          The GOP is eroding the dem position with Hispanics, Asians and Jews. The dem model of slicing up the electorate into tiny grievance groups is reaching it’s end as they could only play both ends against the middle for so long.

      • James Barker

        Most of the poor have jobs. The jobs just don’t pay well enough to get them out of poverty. We subsidize these working poor with food stamps, section 8 housing, and healthcare. This is a form of corporate welfare. If each employer paid their employee well enough, such that they would not be on welfare, then we the people would not have to pay so much in taxes. Saying that it would cost us jobs is totally erroneous, the data from states that it increase minimum wage does not support this statement. When you take money out of the hands of people who put it into savings and put it into the hands of people that spend it more jobs are created.

        • [citations required]

          • James Barker

            Look up the employment of states that have increased minimum wage and compare it to neighboring states that did not increase minimum wage or compare it to national averages. What recent citations to people that claim that increasing minimum wage means job loss? NONE

            When there is a capital deficit then reducing taxes allows for needed capital investment but we currently are awash in capital and have no where to invest it because of lack of demand. We need to stimulate demand, in other words put the money in the hands of those that will buy goods. The whole country, including the rich, will be better off if there is someplace to invest their money that will provide profit in doing so. They need people with money that will spend it. This is also the problem in saying if $15/hr is good then why not $50/hr, because at $50/hr too much will go into savings.

          • jim_m

            I can look at Illinois and see that unemployment is highher than all the surrounding states. Wisconsin and Indiana in particular have poached jobs from Illinois as they have moved in a right to work direction.

            Savings are actually a good thing for the economy long term you dumbass. Savings mean that banks have resources to make loans for businesses to grow. Without savings banks don’t have those resources.

          • James Barker

            Banks are awash in cash. Why do you think returns on deposits are so low? I already went over this. Like they say, we agree to disagree. Companies buy their own stock because there are no growth opportunities to invest in.

          • So far you have only waved your hands…

          • jim_m

            Currently, banks are awash in cash because of quantitative easing. That has little to do with your ideological claims.

            The stock market has been growing. It is a lie to say that there are no growth opportunities to invest in.

          • James Barker

            I’m not talking about banks being a wash in cash I’m talking about corporations and the individuals with most of the money.

            I’m also not talking about investing in your own stock and buying it as an investment. I’m not sure where you live but where I live there’s a lot of empty storefronts. Compared to how much money there is to open up new manufacturing that sector is lackluster. There is not enough demand for goods. Too much money is tied up in savings and too much income is going into savings. The money is not going to developing new manufacturing and sales outlets. It is not going into increasing our gross domestic product. Do you think China is taking their profits and just making their company have more money.

          • jim_m

            I’m not talking about banks being a wash in cash – James Barker

            Banks are awash in cash. – James Barker

            Clearly you don’t even know what you are talking about because you can;t even follow your own train of thought.

          • Vagabond661
          • Vagabond661
        • Vagabond661

          So you increase minimum wage and the employers’ print more money to pay his employees? Wait that’s just the government who does that.

          Where does the extra money come from then? Reduced hours, layoffs, reduced benefits….and this is better for everyone how?

          It’s not the job of the employer or the government to get someone out of poverty. That’s individual responsibility.

          • James Barker

            Over half of corporate profit is being used to buy back their own stock. Instead of doing this, which only drives up stock values artificially, the money goes into he hands of people that will spend it.

          • jim_m

            SO what you are saying is that corporate leadership should refuse to so its fiduciary duty to increase the value of the company to shareholders and instead pursue your ideological agenda to the detriment of shareholder value by permanently increasing operating costs.

            That’s a great way to go out of business fast.

          • James Barker

            I’m not a fascist, I am a pragmatical socialist. I believe people come before companies. I believe we need to fix Main Street because Wall Street’s doing just fine. Companies are not expanding their market base because there’s no one to buy their goods. What we have is a demand shortage. This is why we are not growing as fast as we should.

          • jim_m

            I believe that people ARE companies and that companies are the legal extensions of their will. I believe that you resent people who are successful and desire to wrongfully appropriate their income and wealth. I believe that your idea of “fixing” main street is to have the government choose who wins and who loses, which ultimately means choosing their cronies to win and everyone else to lose. See Solyndra.

            The idea that there is no one to buy goods is idiotic and shows a total lack of understanding of human nature and how a market works. There is never a lack of demand, only a lack of demand for what you provide. Government cannot provide a meaningful demand for a product because it must do so against the will of the people and the market.

            When there is no demand for a product that company deserves to go out of business if it cannot adapt t the changing market. Your solution would have us using typewriters instead of computers. There is a reason there was no demand for Olivetti and Smith Corona. They failed to adapt and went out of business. There was demand, just not for what they made.

            Having government create a false demand and thereby determine economic winners and losers is why the soviet union failed. Socialism fails because it doesn’t work. It presumes ideas about human nature that are simply not true.

            You can keep your idiotic, adolescent ideas about how the world works. Don’t inflict them upon the rest of us. They have been tried and found wanting.

          • James Barker

            You said you believe people or companies I assume you meant companies are people? I consider myself successful and I do not resent myself. I am no Warren Buffett but like him I think the tax laws should require me to pay more taxes. The government already picks who wins and loses, those who buy the our elected officials choose. I will give you a hint, it is not the majority of the people.

            I don’t want the government to create demand for a goods. What I have said has nothing to do with what products are in demand. Way too much money is being channeled into savings and increasing corporate values, while not enough is going into the hands of people who will use it to purchase goods, create demand. In the past the minimum wage was higher with respect to the value of the dollar and the taxes were higher for those that the upper end the income spectrumm. The government does now determine and always has determined the winners and the losers. I just think it should make the majority of the people the winners, instead of a small minority.

            Capitalism without any constraints doesn’t work either because it makes false assumptions about the altruism of companies and people. It results in a huge Peaks and valleys that are inefficient to the system.

            I think you tend to misinterpret people’s words and then use that misinterpretation to attack them. It bothers you to hear ideas that contradict your own. The world is not static it is continually changing and what worked in the past may not work in the future.

          • Vagabond661

            Wow. You must have never owned on a business or only watch MSNBC news.

          • James Barker

            I own a business. I news channel surf, I watch them all. I find that most people that only watch one news channel are Fox viewers.

          • Vagabond661

            Wow. I live near Vegas. Can I come work for you because I bet you pay waaayyy above minimum wage and pay all health insurance benefits.

          • James Barker

            I don’t really have any employees. I am a real estate investor. I own nine houses. I started out with one rental property in 1992. All the work is done by private contractors or through home warrantees. Actually, most of the work is done by me. The first 10 years almost all the work was done by me.

          • Vagabond661

            Ah then an unmarried marriage counselor so to speak. Eager to tell others why they must part with their money.

          • James Barker

            Just a father and grandfather wanting a better world for his children and grandchildren. I’ve been given so much opportunity and want them to have the same.

          • Vagabond661

            Tell them to aspire to more in life than burger turner at Mickey D’s

        • Jwb10001

          And amazingly importing more cheap labor is the solution, right? The left has so many causes they trip over each other at every turn. You want to help with working poor stop importing (allowing) illegal labor that works below an appropriate wage.

          • James Barker

            I fear we are going to have to import educated workers. The level of education, for sure in my state, will not accommodate the labor demands we will have in the future. In September 2014 there were 248,000 jobs created. 230,000 of those jobs were for people 55 and over. There is a skills and education deficit for younger workers in this country.

            I don’t think anyone should be here and be able to get a job if they are here illegally. The E-Verify component of the comprehensive immigration bill would greatly reduce the number of people working illegally. If they can’t get a job and get paid they would not come. The problem is our broken legislative branch can’t pass any laws that have any teeth in them. Any law that has any controversial aspect of it all gets blocked. This is not a left or a right problem it is an American problem.

            The greatest number of illegal immigrants deported in a single year was done so by Barack Obama’s administration, 410,000 illegals deported. There is some controversy as to whether this number is legitimate, in any case the belief is that the number should be smaller. If Obama’s administration were to deport at this rate it would take 15 years to deport the 6.5 million illegals he did not give permission to stay in the country on a temporary basis. Unless you’re one of those people who believe Obama is going to stay the president after 2016, there is no way he’s going to be able to deport that many people in his presidency. Are Republicans saying they’re going to give the border patrol and the people who deport illegals 20 times the amount of money they currently giving them? I think not.

        • jim_m

          You’re right. They don’t pay enough to get you out of poverty. That is why you apply yourself and you get a better job and work your way out of poverty. Getting out of poverty isn’t something you have handed to you. You do it for yourself.

          • James Barker

            jim-m: If you want opportunity to get out of poverty this is not the place to do it with the conditions we have now. The US in not in the top ten for economic freedom, monetary gap, or economic opportunity. We were once the best place to work you way out of poverty and we can be so again. I am not talking class war. The whole system works better when money can and does circulate. It is not doing this now. I come from poverty and understand the opportunities given to me to succeed that are not given to children now. I paid for a semester of college at a state accredited university by working less than 2 weeks. These kids now have to work about 4 months to do the same thing. We had opportunity and these young people deserve the same.

          • jim_m

            You are mixing two separate issues.

            If you want to do something about college tuition, get the government out of the way. When government guaranteed college tuitions the cost of college skyrocketed. Tuition has vastly outpaced inflation and universities do not make it easier to go to college they have simply increased their charges to absorb the federal money. Get the government out of the college loan business and pass a law that makes colleges partially responsible for the payback of the student loans. If students default because they can’t get jobs it is at least partially the failure of the college.

            Increasing government control over wages is not hte way to increase economic freedom. Look at what it takes to open a business. When it takes 2 years to open a restaurant in California and only 6 weeks to open one in Texas, we can see the problem that government causes. Government is the problem. Economic freedom is restricted when government makes it harder to employ people because of obamacare, and ridiculous min wage laws and when it makes it harder to open a business because of idiotic regulation.

          • James Barker

            College tuitions in the university I went to increased because the state decided to spend less money to support the school so the student had to pay a bigger percentage of tuition. At the same time wages have not increased even though GDP per capita has continued to gain at the same historical rate in this country. The businesses, that need these educated workers to perform (increase GDP) as well in the past, have stopped paying for their education. We need educated workers. Educated workers make more money and better products. A college education costs too much in this country.

            That is not good for our country.

            Corporations can always go to some other country that have educated workers, like Germany where if you can get admitted you do not pay for college. Lack of regulation almost started a great depression in 2008. The pendulum swings both ways and it is the most effective in the middle. All of these issues are related and none of them has a simple answer. We are not even asking the right questions.

          • jim_m

            What lack of regulation? It was government regulation through the CRA that caused the housing bubble. It wasn’t lack of government regulation that pushed mortgage lenders to make subprime loans, it was active government intervention that forced them to do it. Had the federal government not gotten involved with regulating the mortgage industry the mortgage companies would never have made subprime loans to begin with.

            What you think you know is a bunch of bs.

          • James Barker

            How do we get more engineers, mathematicians, and scientists?

            Those are the people that will become entrepreneurs.

          • jim_m

            Seriously? Not every entrepreneur is a great inventor or scientist. Some are simple people that create a new idea for a product or service. DO you honestly think that Starbucks required a scientist to start it?

            And have you forgotten that Bill Gates does not have a college degree? Or Steve Jobs? Or Mark Zuckerberg? Or Buckminster Fuller? Or Frank Lloyd Wright?

            It doesn’t take a college degree to succeed and only an idiot would claim so.

            Yes, we need scientists and engineers (You’re talking to someone who has a family full of them).. But that doesn’t mean that government needs to be getting in the way. It was the government that made student loans non-dischargable through bankruptcy. It is that and the government control of the student loan market that have helped to drive up tuition costs.

            Government claimed to be making it easier to go to college, but schools have not increased their enrollments accordingly. But in reality what it did was create a money transfer to the universities where they did not make it any easier to gain admission, but jacked up their costs making it even harder to afford without the government loans.

            It was easier to get a college degree before the government got in the way. Also, most colleges are not graduating students in 4 years anymore. The average for a “4 year degree” is now 6 years.

          • Jwb10001

            You claim that the US is not in the top 10 in economic freedom and then proceed to advocate less freedom for those who employ people. You advocate more restriction more government involvement, how on earth could more government ever lead to more freedom? You seem to be a collection of socialist talking points, you can’t even follow your own logic and arguments and disagree with yourself in every other post.

          • James Barker

            Government involvement led to the freedom of millions of slaves. Government involvement led to the freedom of half of Europe after World War II. Government involvement led to the freedom of the Communist bloc countries in Eastern Europe. Simply saying something doesn’t make it truth. If keeping an open mind is liberal and keeping a close mine is conservative, then I’m a liberal.

            I realize that companies and corporations can help people but the people are more important than the company. The people are more important than the government. Just like everybody else, you can’t give me a name like liberal or Democrat or right-winger or whatever and know all my thoughts and beliefs. if it made sense to deport every lillegal right now I would agree with that, they are criminals and I hate encouraging people to break the law. It’s just not logistically possible. and it would do more harm than good to our country. Any politician that tells you he’s going to deport every ellegal is just pandering to his base for money and votes. Forgetting these people without some penalty is also wrong. I am not contradicting myself I am simply not like the street sign, “one way.”

          • Jwb10001

            I thought we were talking about the economy now you want to talk about freeing slaves? Jesus can you stick to the topic at hand. My comment had to do with you saying we were not in the top 10 for ECONOMIC freedom. Not that government has no role in make us a reasonable society. God you wonder off in so many directions at the same time it’s impossible to engage in any meaningful way. Enjoy your mental masturbation session, I think I’ll just move along now.

          • Warfare led to the freedom of millions of slaves.
            Warfare freed Europe from Fascism.

          • Commander_Chico

            Warfare is a government business, you dolt.

          • What government is ISIS representing?

          • James Barker

            The American G.I. are the greatest contributors to both of these. Maybe you don’t know why G.I. stands for?

        • jim_m

          You do realize that the main reason for increasing the min wage is that union contracts are tied to the min wage? So any increase means an increase in union wages, which means an increase in union dues, which means an increase in spending for democrat campaigns.

          So why must we increase the min wage? Because the dems want more campaign funding.

          • James Barker

            You would cut off your nose to spite your face. Country before party is the way I see it. Other countries are laughing at us. We will not do what is best for the country because of party politics? We have a broken branch of government and that broken branch is complaining because the other two branches are taking up the slack as best they can.

            I say lets get all the money out of elections. Why should anyone or group be able to hijack “my representative” just because they can buy time to present only one side of the issue?

            It will take an amendment but I want representatives to represent ME if I am going to pay taxes to pay them.

          • jim_m

            Take your own advice. You put party before country with your ridiculous demands for increasing the min wage.

            When you say “get the money out of elections” what you really mean is force the tax payer to pay for the whole thing. No, let’s let people express themselves by backing the candidates they want to. But let’s force candidates to document and provide free access to the databases of who is donating and how much. Let’s not allow a repeat of obama’s taking all the credit card security off of his website and allowing effectively anonymous donations to pour in from foreign countries.

  • Paul Hooson

    Your 114th Congress Republican Jewish Conference…..But, more seriously, Eric Cantor was the sole Jewish Republican in Congress, but lost re-election in the primary. There are 11 Democrats and 1 Independent in the Senate. And 21 Democrat members in the House. One area where our Congress is less representative this year…