Affirmative Action, GOP Style

The unusually naked racism pouring forth from the GOP lately, greatly amplified by the gasbags on television,  and still led by Pat Buchanan, who has been feeding America this revolting Southern Strategy hate speech for 40 years, seems to have brought Republicans to their final cul-de-sac.  As they’ve coddled the fears and hatreds of white males for so long against, well, everyone else, simple arithmetic dictates that they’re in dire need of an affirmative action plan.  They lost Indiana, for Pete’s sake.  And guess what?  Just as they’ve been telling us all this time, that to hire and advance women and minorities would mean unqualified people would pass their superior peers on the basis of their color or sex, they’ve become the poster child , nay, exemplar, of this phenonemon.  Color me shocked, shocked.  How could it be otherwise?  If the only selling feature you have to offer the distressingly numerous non-wealthy is keeping darkies and broads in their place, any minorities or women you are able to attract will obviously have to be stupid, crazy, or simply grabby charlatans who, when seeing their opportunities, take ‘em.  Most often, all three.

Starting at the top, let’s have a look-see at Michael Steele.  He says crazy, often highly damaging things each day, but it’s okay, because no one in the GOP ever planned on listening to him anyway.  Having run fresh out of black congressmen, they just wanted to throw someone on stage for color, literally, as Bush so often did at his staged campaign rallies, for the all-white audience to look at.  Unfortunately, this one talks, too, which has proven undeniably problematic.  If they were smart, at least politically, they’d unload the guy; if their African American votes went from 7% to 5% would it really hurt that much?  Fortunately, as we know, they’re not.  Steele’s presence merely insults the intelligence of the other 93% of black voters, all of whom are smarter, less crazy, and more qualified than he, and they know that kind of Affirmative Action when they see it.

And then there’s Sarah Palin.  Also.  Clearly a foaming narcissist with barely two brain cells to rub together, she was nonetheless deemed “perfect” because of her beauty queen fake charm and nice ass, especially when expensively dressed.  The anti-environment views were a nice asset, too, although she was too astoundingly dimwitted to ever come close to explaining them coherently.  Her very presence in the party, especially lately, is a hard slap in the face of any woman, meaning almost all of them, who ever had to, say, complete a job, accept criticism, learn quickly a lot of new information, and get through a challenging discussion without making an ass of herself.  Palin flatly and proudly refuses to do any of those things, but somehow the GOP thinks that even though she’s no intellectual, she’s got a nice set of ideas, and that will have to do.  Again, no one planned to listen to her; like Steele, she’s another token, for all to see.  Who’s next, Carrie Prejean?  That’s starting to look like a yes.  She’s got an even nicer set of ideas, and a Regnery book deal to boot.  Bathing suits and high heels are very Presidential these days.

Maybe there’s some diabolical strategy behind all this, since obviously it can have no other purpose, embarrassing failure that it demonstrably is.  If Steele, Palin, Michele Bachmann, all those kooks in Texas, and a Batista-admiring Cuban or two are the only minorities or women we see on TV representing the GOP, we do start to get the idea that a greater number of them are stupid, crazy charlatans.  With the drearily familiar two-sided matchup, it might gradually become lodged in the national subconscious that at least half of all minorities and women are, well, dunderheaded cuckoos, unfit to properly pronounce any sentence beyond, “Do you want fries with that?”   See?  They were right all along.

A plan so crazy it might work.

35 Comments

  1. heru-ur says:

    Hell Hag, if the Republicans self-destruct that is ok by me. If they take the damn Democrats with them, so much the better. Nice writing again by the way. Are you sure you don’t write for a living?

    I’ll have more to say later after I have thought over your words, but I’ll make a few points “off the cuff”.

    Palin is real popular among Republican working women. The more Dems make fun of her, the more you lose that segment of the vote; although you may not really want it. In fact, perhaps an anti-Palin 4 years will bring the Dems together; who knows?

    I think a breakup of the country that would free people to build a society they want is what we need more than one party “winning”.

    I grew up when Democrats dominated America. It was not pretty then, and it will not be pretty this time. I hope that does not sound like I like Republicans; because that is the problem — I dislike both. (had I ever mentioned that?) =:-)

    Pat B? Not while I am listening to jazz; it would blow the mood. That is it, I need some blow. Or a blow … ah, where was I … ?

    • cocktailhag says:

      You’re awfully easily distracted, Heru… I know the feeling. But your worries about Democrats “dominating” their way out of a wet paper bag is a bit laughable. I’ve seldom seen them do this. Watergate? A little. The Church Comittee Hearings? Maybe a bit more. Still, the idea that Democrats might march in with some world-dominating scheme, or even trying to take over a county or two is unfortunately unlikely to happen. The time to which you are referring was when “Cold War Liberals” espoused the same militarism as the GOP, kind of like now. I see no difference, even aesthetically.

      • dirigo says:

        Dipshit Democrats?

        Check out the story on the sweep and arrests of officials (and several orthodox rabbis) in New Jersey.

        Most of the officials arrested were Dems. The rabbis had the beards.

        • cocktailhag says:

          I saw that story, Dirigo, in bernbart’s favorite fishwrapper, and it was a stunner. Color me (un) surprised, but nonetheless highly intrigued.

  2. The Heel says:

    “A plan so crazy it might work” sums it up nicely.
    My gut feeling is that the left is lulling itself into this complacent notion of certainty about the GOPs end – or at the very least about the GOP’s inability to win the 2012 elections.
    3.5 years is a long time my friend and a lot will happen. So far nobody can seriously be very impressed by the Dem’s performance and the people’s patience has a long way to be tested. It is ultimately the economy more than anything or anybody that will determine the next election. If we have >10% unemployed and the rest suffering from increased taxes, health insurance (e.g. taxing the employer’s contribution), you can bet your lily ass the GOP will win, no matter who they nominate. Hell, they won with Ronald Reagan, remember? In Europe everybody was expecting Mickey Mouse to be next back then. “W” has since of course lowered the expectations….

    So, Sarah Palin would not be a surprise by international measures and after Obama broke the glass ceiling for the darkies, Sarah will do the same for the dummies. Who says that mentally challenged trailer trash can’t become president?

    I hope that Obama (unlike Hoover) is a lucky president.

    • dirigo says:

      Going OT slightly, but then, maybe not; some background on town and gown relationships in Cambridge, Mass., to go with the Gates/Crowley story, and Harvard.

      http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/media-ignoring-prior-claims-of-harvard-police-racism/

    • cocktailhag says:

      I’m not sure, but it seems like the GOP is currently being plagued by a lot of “Tart Mixups,” Palin being one of the least sensational of them, and, as you learned the hard way, those never turn out well.

      • The Heel says:

        :) that was my darkest hour and I admit that tart mixups have no upsides….

        But time heals all wounds and the GOP clowns have time on their side.
        The media’s hype creation ability together with the electorate’s short attention span will allow them to present a joker candidate in March of 2011.
        Had you heard of Obama in July 2005?

        I am off to a cold one (or two)…Cheers!

        • cocktailhag says:

          You’ve had darker hours, Heel, one or two of which happened before my eyes, but your point is still taken. (It was, however, undoubtedly the funniest….) Although I don’t ordinarily drink, tip one back to my health, anyway.

  3. Jim White says:

    The poll numbers out this week on Palin were very interesting. The rest of the public is beginning to see through her pretty well. Her negatives are very high and she is viewed as not very smart or truthful. None of that has kept her from still being very popular among what’s left of the Republicans, which just goes to show how divorced from reality they are. The good news from the poll is that I don’t think the crazy plan will work. We still have Michelle Obama, for example, who seems to have maintained a bit more of her integrity so far than her husband has. With a few positive role models among women and people of color, we’ll be fine.

    • cocktailhag says:

      My point exactly, Jim. I was attempting to emphasize the “crazy” over the “might work.” Did Palin get one provable female vote that Righties wouldn’t have gotten anyway? No way. Same with Steele. Their rule seems to be, “When you’re in a hole, get a bigger shovel.”

  4. dirigo says:

    Quit watching the boob tube and the GOP will go away (at least in your house).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/charles-pierce-slams-main_n_244172.html

    • cocktailhag says:

      That clip was great; I saw it when it first popped up. One of my beefs with Schuster is that he was a Whitewater FOX-hound, and although he’s moved on, can’t let go. Admitting you were ever wrong is simply not done within the beltway.

    • Karen M says:

      The money quote (for my money) from that piece, Dirigo!

      Schuster: If liz cheney or anybody else is unwilling to acknowledge the facts in something as clear-cut as President Obama’s birth, why should Liz Cheney be trusted on anything else she that she wants to talk about?

      Pierce: I don’t know. I’m not the one who books her. I mean, it’s the folks on shows like this that book her… I don’t know that she’s a leader of any kind. What I would tell you is she’s a prominent Republican because she’s been made a prominent Republican on TV. </blockquote

      • cocktailhag says:

        More Affirmative Action, or its righty cousin, nepotism….. Spot on, Karen. Sadly, such glaringly obvious points are never, ever, made.

      • dirigo says:

        The producers and bookers are not exercising journalistic judgment. They are inclined to give air to plainly frivolous issues (it’s good teevee!), don’t weigh the credibility of prospective guests (or call those who are lying out enough), and therefore give more weight than is due to issues that are marginal compared to the serious ones, and give equal weight to credible voices and crackpots.

        The larger and more stupid the audience the less they can tell what’s worth paying attention to.

        Gotta spike those ratings!

  5. dirigo says:

    I’d be willing to bet that Charlie Pierce, as well as most people in Boston and New England could give a shit what happens in Mississippi on a day-to-day basis; but this story just might carry more weight in the bye and bye than the one about the president’s birth certificate.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-07-23/the-secret-gop-sex-diary/2/

  6. dirigo says:

    Where was this black man born? This is really, really, important.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?hp

    • cocktailhag says:

      It’s not the birth they care about, Dirigo, but the conception. It’s just like abortion that way, only in this case worse. Not just sex, but interracial sex. Lordy, that stuff should have been banned.

  7. dirigo says:

    “Anytime you thinkin’ evil, you thinkin’ ’bout the blues … ”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ou-6A3MKow

  8. cocktailhag says:

    Great clip, Dirigo. Reminds me of the last time I was in New Orleans. Haltingly recovering from pneumonia in May 2006, I went down with my cousin Paula and her family to look at the house they’d just bought in the Marigny. My already melancholy mood was further dampened by the misbehavior of her bratty daughters, a power outage that left us all in utter darkness and sticky heat, and my shock and horror that that long after Katrina, nobody had even yet picked up the garbage. A deader and more hopeless place could hardly be imagined. Then, late at night, as I fought off mosquitos and insomnia, outside I heard, softly but getting louder, a lone trumpeter walking down the street, playing in the most mournful possible tones, “When the Saints Go Marching In.”
    I knew why we were there.

  9. Jim Montague says:

    Not meaning to change the subject, but will CHNN close for the weekend to cover Brewfest?

    • cocktailhag says:

      Aaron has already been covering this crucial event, but the Hag doesn’t generally cover non-protest shindigs where long lines and porta-potties are involved. Actually, I’m planning to interview the chairman of Oregon Food Bank about hunger in our state. I spoke to him at some length earlier today, but had not prepared questions and didn’t have a camera crew, so another visit will be required.

  10. timothy3 says:

    My God, Hag, the people named–Steele, Buchanan, Palin–are enough right there to tell us how completely insane this Party is (and I have to go back to read comments, so others might have stated the obvious in this way; don’t know, have to check).
    Here’s Pat Buchanan–STILL ON NATIONAL TV–when the man is so straightforward in his racism/sexism it has to be heard to be believed; Christ–This guy, THIS GUY–drawing a check from a major network.
    And Steele, the lack of self-respect on the part of this man is nothing short of appalling. I have many, many–many–personal problems, but one of them isn’t self-contempt like this man.
    Then there’s Palin. She’s the very cliche of all those things women have rightly complained about and fought against these many years (and oddly, this remains so even as she achieved the Governor-ship. Even Franz Kafka wouldn’t know what to do with a story like this).
    Were I a woman, of the progressive sort, I’d be completely furious that this creature has so quickly, effectively ambushed/set back efforts decades in the making.

    • cocktailhag says:

      My feelings exactly, T3. Back in the day, even Nixon kept Buchanan under wraps, only to be trotted out before the friendliest crowds. Such pretenses have now been dropped, and I don’t know whether I’m bragging or complaining about that.

  11. heru-ur says:

    Hag,

    One question. If Pat Buchanan is such a crazed racist, why did he pick a black man as his VP pick in 2000? At the time, there was a real possibility that he might win the nomination. And why did the black man later say, “he was for fair trade over free trade. He had some progressive positions that I thought would be helpful to the common man” when ask why he accepted?

    Of course if he is an “old time conservative” as he claims, then tradition becomes the most important thing in his life and he will resist change. He is a Catholic — I bet the old fart wants to go back to Mass in Latin only.

    Anyway, the guy can be damn irritating to both libertarians and “far left crazies”, but he is good on history and foreign policy even if he has wild notions at times. A mixed bad, I would say. He once claimed (in a book?) that the west was dying out as a society because of demographics. The blacks, Arabs, Hispanics and so forth were out breeding the Anglo. He sees that as “bad”, while I see it as “good”.

    I see a man, well educated and well able to express himself, that is deathly afraid of change. I think many, many Americans are deathly afraid of change. Everyone (vast majority really) would rather deal with the devil they know than take a chance on real change.

    Too bad, because there is only change in this life. The river of life is a fast moving stream of water.

    • Jim White says:

      Heru,

      I hate to badger you, but your inspired typo sums up Buchanan completely. He is indeed a mixed bad. Bad on racism. Bad on sexism. Bad on foreign policy. Bad on economics. A very strong mix of bad.

      To the CHNN: I’ll be on the road for a few days and may not have much time to check in, but I want to make sure there are no more oversights like missing the Silverton mayor story. That is, unless Brewfest overflows into CHNN HQ and things kind of degenerate from there.

      • cocktailhag says:

        With the brewfest going on, we will be working with a skeleton crew here at CHNN, but I’ll keep a closer eye on things.

      • heru-ur says:

        Jim,

        You say he is “bad” on everything. What does that mean? What is “bad”? Can you give examples of positions that are “bad” without saying the the man is “bad”?

        As an example, was his position that we should never invade Iraq an example of “bad” to you?