Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (7464)	11/25/2000 6:32:41 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

Oh please- the Republicans play to the same emotions- I grant you Greed is usually first, but hate and fear are there too. It's politics to play to those emotions. Can you say Willie Horton? ah knew 'ya could. Does the little Bush fall far from the daddy Bush? I guess we'll have to wait and see. In 1988, with Lee Atwater running George Bush's campaign, crime was a major component in the effort to defeat Mike Dukakis. The key element was Willie Horton, a black "furloughed" Massachusetts criminal. I found this particularly interesting: The Republican crime charge always worked against Democrats, because the public at large seems to believe that Democrats are more sensitive to the rights of criminals than to that of the honest citizen. That kernel of truth gave Republicans the power to regularly bludgeon Democrats. Republicans are learning -- to their dismay -- that the Democrats’ naked appeals to race work in a similar way. Likewise, the body politic is receptive to the notion -- not that all Republicans are racist -- but that Republicans are more likely to be racially insensitive or exclusionary than Democrats. It might not be true, but that is the perception. We live in an era that places a premium on the concept of diversity and tolerance. Not merely blacks or other minorities, but the public at large does not exactly see a "diverse" GOP -- with the notable exception of J.C. Watts. Worse, the party is not helped with the presence of a Jesse Helms. For that matter, let's not forget Trent Lott, because come the 2000 campaign, the Democrats probably won't. Here we have the Senate majority leader refusing to explain exactly what his relationship is to the racialist Council of Conservative Citizens. When his connection was revealed earlier this year, Lott took a page out of the Bill Clinton classic excuse book: Deny (knowing or speaking to the group), demur (when the facts appear to contradict the initial denial) and finally dismiss (refuse to answer any more questions after a certain amount of time). Even given the fact that Democrats play dirty pool with race, the truth is that Republicans have left themselves vulnerable to this attack by their unwillingness to call out individuals on legitimate charges of racism and racial insensitivity. Salon's Jake Tapper noted a few weeks back: "Buchanan is back in the presidential campaign saddle again, leaving a trail of racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic rhetorical dung behind him wherever he goes. But unlike in his two previous runs, this time around virtually no one seems willing to call him on it." Tapper was a bit premature: Buchanan was pretty much given the high hand after his book became a bit more known and particularly after he signaled his intention to leave the GOP for the Reform Party. But the question remains: Why did it take so long for the party to disassociate itself from Buchanan’s career of questionable comments? Instead, there was always someone to defend him with, “Oh, that’s just Pat.” If Republicans allow someone in the party who is a racist and an anti-Semite, but only call him on it when he threatens to leave, the entire party’s credibility is called into question.