Re: CNN contributer "We don't need white people leading the democratic party right no
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016...eople-leading-the-democratic-party-right-now/
Hmm. Racist much?
Oh wait, its Breitbart, a fringe, fictional news source. But, then again, she did say it on CNN, a "
reputable, neutral" news source.
What's funny is they had all the demographics lined up THIS election, and the Republican Party was fading into history. They lose and rather than think it might have had to do with the candidate they chose, they blame whitey.
Makes perfect sense if you're a moron.
Furthermore, I'm going to state an unpopular fact you're not going to hear on the news media - it is the REPUBLICAN Party that is 'more diverse' in terms of 'accepting deviations from party orthodoxy' as opposed to simply viewing every person of every stripe of color as a monolith. The GOP - at one time - was far more diverse (again, in terms of tolerance of opposing views) than it is today. It is easy - although not as easy as it was 20 years ago - to name Republicans who hold a more liberal (for lack of a better word) view on things like gay marriage (Portman) and abortion (Susan Collins, Mark Kirk). Try to name a Democrat who is pro-life without looking on the Internet or one who is sort of middle of the road and favor(ed) civil unions and gay rights but was against gay marriage. You can find Republicans willing to raise taxes - go find me a Democrat who will actually put before Congress spending cuts in any area other than defense. (No, "I'm willing to cut things" is NOT acceptable given the chicanery that accompanied the 1982 and 1990 budget deals, which is why you won't find a Republican willing to just raise taxes and actually believe the spending reductions will ever occur - because history shows they won't).
It's also no accident that when the GOP reach was at its widest, they won five out of six Presidential elections, three in absolute routs and a fourth one that may as well have been (Bush-Dukakis). At that time, they still had (basically) the same platform on abortion (to use an overrated example), but their primary appeal was economic. And despite the reputation of Lee Atwater, they ran a 'big tent' campaign on social issues that recognized differences.
Of course, the rise of Gingrich and the boys in 1994 - and then holding onto it for awhile - created its own problem that led to the willingness of Republicans to have purges during the primaries of so-called "RINOs." It was conveniently forgotten that Nixon and Reagan both understood the necessity of having a person with you 60% of the time rather than against you 90% of the time. (Remember - Gingrich and Co were the guys who mis-managed the government shutdown once and then had the insanity to do it yet again two months later).
So the inconvenient TRUTH is that nowadays NEITHER party reflects diversity politically. Sure, the Democrats have people of more colors but when you get right down to the core of the whole thing, they all toe the line on every issue regardless. They spout the same erroneous government statistics and have all the same basic non-solutions that boil down to nothing more than 'vote for me.' Once again, I won't for a single nanosecond deny that the Republicans are essentially their twin - but it's the GOP that gets ripped for it's so-called 'lack of diversity,' which is another way of the "Bonfire of the Vanities" press parroting a myth. They DO lack diversity politically and it's true they don't have the numbers of color - but when you get right down to it, they don't have the wide spectra of beliefs/positions, either.
If you look at the Roosevelt coalition that basically held together from 1932-1968, it was vast. There were huge disagreements within the Democratic Party over things (most tragically civil rights) and how to solve them. But they represented a wider view of position and were able to tuck voters in under a broad stretch. That all ended when we went to the modern primary system between the 1968 and 1972 elections - and it was first the Democrats that had the problem of 'litmus test orthodoxy,' or denying votes to a John Glenn who was with them 90% of the time and nominating Mr 100%-er Walter Mondale to get his tail kicked in the election. (The only reason Jimmy Carter got through that wall is because there were eleven other candidates splitting the liberal vote while he sought the moderate and conservative sections that no longer exist). Then we got the GOP Coalition that basically went from 1972-1992, when Clinton short-circuited it.
Of course, the Dems decided that the only reason they lost all those elections was mythical GOP appeals to racism. (Is this sounding familiar to anyone right now? Save for the fact that I'll concede Trump actually made some nationalist/racist appeals?).
