Would The GOP Nominate A Candidate Who Makes Race Based Appeals?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:31:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Seems like a dumb question I know, but remarkably, Jon Chait says no:

It would be nearly impossible to imagine the Republican Party nominating a candidate who spent years and years publishing a racist newsletter and has deep associations with the fringe far right. (Here he is speaking to the John Birch Society on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.)

I think that Chait has it backwards. It is impossible to imagine the GOP nominating a candidate who does NOT make race based appeals.

Consider Ronald Reagan - welfare queens in Cadillacs and "states rights" in Philadelphia,Mississippi, just for starters.

And today, the GOP's universal war on immigrants is racism uncovered. What in Gawd's name is Chait talking about? The more plausible argument from Chait? This:

It would be even more impossible to imagine the Party nominating a candidate who favors total withdrawal from world affairs and takes a Chomsky-ite line on American power.

It is true that Ron Paul is not eager to use American military power and speaks of restraining Executive power. And those views are anathema to the GOP. Of course, they are also anathema to Jon Chait, who would be, in many ways, a more plausible GOP candidate than Ron Paul. It's an interesting story.

Speaking for me only

< Happy Hanukah Open Thread | Suck On This >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Would The GOP Nominate A Candidate Who Makes Race Based Appeals? | 29 comments (29 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Sounds about right... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:01:39 AM EST

the GOP is far more offended by Paul's stance on our drug laws and foreign policy, iow they are appalled when he actually makes sense...the old newsletter skeletons they could live with, even discreetly admire.

The base don't bat an eye when Bachmann talks about jesusing the gay out of people, or Newt talks about putting black children to work by abolishing child labor laws...they cheer louder than an Orwellian ten minutes hate.

Yup. what else have they got? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:18:49 AM EST

They have been wrong on everything that can be measured objectively. Lizard brain distrust and fear is their whole game plan.

Anathema is bipartisan these days (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Romberry on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:35:14 AM EST

It is true that Ron Paul is not eager to use American military power and speaks of restraining Executive power. And those views are anathema to the GOP.

Also anathema to Obamacrats.

: Obama honored his promise to pull (none / 0) (#24)
by MKS on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 03:59:00 PM EST

the troops out of Iraq.

Somewhat major typo in body of post: (none / 0) (#1)
by Anne on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:39:52 AM EST

It is impossible to imagine the GOP nominating a candidate who does NOT make face based appeals.

Not that we don't all make judgments based on people's faces, but that's another whole subject/issue!

: Heh (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 08:45:15 AM EST

Thanks.

Ouch (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:12:03 AM EST

What is going on with the polls in Iowa? (none / 0) (#6)
by lilburro on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:26:46 AM EST

Makes me want to throw my hat into the ring since I might apparently have a "chance" at winning.

If you want to throw your hat into the ring, (none / 0) (#10)
by Farmboy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:45:14 AM EST

here's what you need to say:

"Whar birff certificate, whar?"
"I don't hate people what don't got white skin, but... (insert racist comment here)"
"Obama keeps leaving the country for vacations in Hawaii!"
"The American Gov't sucks, so give me a gov't job!"
"Sharia law! It's everywhere!"
"My multiple infidelities make me an expert on the sanctity of marriage!"
"Jesus hates everyone who isn't a white, straight male like He was!"
"I'll honor the Constitution by ordering Congress to do everything I say!"
Claim that your life experience has nothing to do with anything that would qualify you to be president - which is why you should be president.

And more in that vein.


I think it's chilling that (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:57:59 AM EST

some few tens of thousands of people in a homogeneous state, an aging state, a state that is losing population, can dictate who a candidate should be for a nation.

When Newt or Ron Paul or Santorum or Bachmann can get the momentum from such a non-representative aggregation of people, and possibly ride it to a nomination with batsh!t crazy proposals... well.

And the idea that caucuses are in some way more 'democratic' just makes me laugh. Peer pressure and small group dynamics, even groupthink, these easily appear in a situation where there isn't a private vote.


Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 10:23:54 AM EST

In 2008, Huckabee was the winner (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by KeysDan on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 10:52:12 AM EST

in Iowa, followed by Romney. McCain was tied for third with the human dynamo, Fred Thompson. If Gingrich wins Iowa this year (and, fortunately, he seems to be falling like a rock, despite his throwing anti-gay, anti-abortion catnip to the Evangelicals), it would help him owing to the media hype. For the rest, it would not be conclusive., in my view.


I read somewhere... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:03:36 AM EST

Iowa power-brokers are worried what a Ron Paul win in Iowa would mean...namely irrelevance for the Iowa caucus as any indicator of the eventual nominee. "Serious" candidates would no longer bother wasting all that time and money in Iowa pandering when it don't mean d*ck as far as eventually winning the nomination is concerned.


: The Iowa GOP caucus is already irrelevant (none / 0) (#16)
by Farmboy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:12:16 AM EST

as far as being an indicator of the eventual nominee. And Romney's been spending less time in Iowa than any of the other clowns.
New Hampshire is the bellwether state for the GOP contests. Iowa has just become the traditional setting for retail campaigning - one that should end after this year. Let some other state have 'em - my vote is for Michigan. I'd love to see Romney standing on a street corner in Detroit defending his views on the auto bailouts.

: Yes, I was happy to see that. Go Ron! (none / 0) (#23)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 03:58:36 PM EST

Did something in particular happen (none / 0) (#17)
by lilburro on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:33:47 AM EST

to Gingrich? Or are people just remembering him a little more clearly? I don't recall hearing any new scandal in relation to him and his campaign, although I guess he supported a not entirely hateful immigration policy the other night, IIRC. Was that it?


: What happened to Newt. (none / 0) (#19)
by Addison on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:59:41 AM EST

On the ground in Iowa there have been $50-100,000 dollars of anti-Gingrich ads on the air every night. And more in the papers under the guise of editorials and slanted stories. If you're not in Iowa the anti-Newt onslaught might not seem all that impressive.
Additionally, my pet theory is that Cain voters, given Cain's rather sudden implosion, all separately decided to go with Newt since he was the last option -- not consciously realizing that EVERYONE would. When they saw Newt actually in the lead, by a lot, but freaked out and started to re-assign their anti-Romney vote by who they actually liked (instead of whoever the next contender was), equalizing pretty much every anti-Romney at around 10-14% (which we've seen). So, if that's true, we've finally reached a more stable, bubble-free point in the campaign, unlike the last 6 months.
I don't count Ron Paul as a bubble because he's got a core of support and while he might not win Iowa, he's not going to go down to 5% either.

That would be chilling, were it true. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Farmboy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:04:28 AM EST

But as noted before, history shows that in multi-candidate seasons with no GOP incumbent like this one the Iowa GOP caucuses don't dictate anything. Two times out of three they pick guys like Buchanan or Huckabee, who don't have any national support. Only once has the same guy won both IA and NH, and that was 24 years ago.

As to demographics, I'll grant you that the 89% caucasian ethnic mix doesn't line up nationally, but at 23.9% there is the same percentage of children as nationally, the percentage of 65 and older is only 14.9% compared to 13% nationally, and the state has seen a 4% population growth in the last ten years.

Oh, and the Iowa GOP caucus votes by secret ballot. TMYK


The GOP has been making race-based appeals (none / 0) (#7)
by Farmboy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:30:52 AM EST

since the days of the Civil Rights Act.

And, their problem with Paul isn't just that his race-based appeals are said out loud rather than in code, it's that he says everything they hold dear out loud: video

The first rule of GOP club is that you don't talk about GOP club.

Except (none / 0) (#18)
by bocajeff on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:55:40 AM EST

That the GOP had more votes for the Civil Rights Act than Dems...


That's why I said "since the days of..." (none / 0) (#20)
by Farmboy on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:09:32 PM EST

and not "during the days of..."

Clarifications of tense aside, the Act of 64 was the tipping point for party realignment due to race. While majorities in both parties voted for the bill, it gave the voting south to the GOP and made the Dems the party for minorities.


Those Republicans (none / 0) (#22)
by MKS on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 03:57:23 PM EST

were the liberals that the rest of you ran out of the GOP.

And the Dems who opposed Civil Rights are all or would be Republicans now.

Red State America=Old Dixie.


: I think that's a little simplistic... (none / 0) (#26)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 07:48:32 PM EST

what about the midwest and New England? I must say that the change to more and more conservative republicans in the south has occurred, but the southern strategy age voters have begun to die out. Now there's a much more nuanced conservative dynamic.
notwithstanding certain hard-core racists, as found in my state's legislature, sigh...

Boy oh, boy (none / 0) (#9)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 09:38:03 AM EST

where has Chait been residing for lo these past three or four decades? I guess this is what the beltway CW is thinking but the part about Paul being against the neocon nonsense is the real killer for the GOP I would think just going by the Republicans I talk to here in GA.

geez, again with the trick questions! (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 12:49:09 PM EST

since republican party policy, since nixon (see: strategy, southern), has been to make raced based appeals, by definition, that's the kind of candidate they'll nominate. it's part of their DNA.

only if you've been living in a cave these past 40 years, would that even be a question.

: In a cave, or in the world of 'journalism' (none / 0) (#25)
by ruffian on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 04:00:56 PM EST

where it is considered biased to notice such things.

race based appeals (none / 0) (#27)
by diogenes on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:02:23 PM EST

You don't suppose that a race based appeal didn't help President Obama get 96% of the African American vote with a very large turnout in 2008, do you?

Yeah, normally (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by lilburro on Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 11:45:35 PM EST

the GOP has that vote locked up.


: You win my prize ... (none / 0) (#29)
by cymro on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:55:36 AM EST

... for the best comment today.