You can see that the Republicans are taking this "You can't piss off all the people all the time" strategy seriously by talking about immigration reform.

Um yeah, I agree. There was never a moment when I felt Romney wasn't 'talking down' to the little people, that whole attitude unforgettably crystalized by the 47% video. The Left can sound preachy, but the Right never even bothered, this time around, to even try to be inclusive.

Just because it's true doesn't mean one should say it out loud, sir. Democratic politicians have the same opinions of the rabble but they kiss up before the election. (Life of Julia, vote with your lady parts, OBAMA PHONE!)

Fact is that i am surrounded by free-loading, job-averse parasites who want to smoke weed and have recreational abortions all day long but want hardworking white Me to pay the tab just as soon as i can find a second job. I hain't running for office so i can say so.

Let's pick immigration as an example.

Many in the Republican party will say "I object to amnesty for illegals until the border is sealed. Granting citizenship to children brought here illegally is part of a comprehensive plan. But we will continue to have problems until we are controlling who comes across the border." The soundbite heard on the major media outlets is "I object to amnesty for illegals." put next to a Republican face.

It is the same way on the Sunday shows. The major media puts the question as: "Why do you oppose amnesty for these poor kids?" not "What do you think we should do about illegal immigration?"

The reply to the first question will involve some form of "close the border" or "comprehensive reform" and the libtard host will come back with "But the illegal children are in limbo."

The Republican party is constantly portrayed as a behemoth with all it's members in lockstep and constantly trying to answer the question "When did you stop beating your wife?"

===================================

I can't believe I just defended the Republican party.

The Republicans will never be able to outbid the Democrats. And, if the Republicans try, they will simply alienate many of the base.

The biggest thing I see is that most idiot voters, pay too much attention to what comes out of politicians mouths, and then totally fail to educate themselves about what these same politicians CAN do, and HAVE done.
This allows the individual and party who panders the most successfully to win elections, regardless of the long term terribleness of their policies, if they even have any policies.

Obama's government has been reactionary. He careens from crisis to crisis, doing what ever looks good in the short term, saying all the politically correct things, and burying a number of major fuck ups with lies and cover ups.

This is why people think rationing of gas, (or price controls) are fair. They keep those evil rich people from getting all the gas, even when in reality, it means that almost no one will get gas.

Amy, you keep pushing this meme that the GOP lost the election because social conservative. You may be right -- but if it's true, whose fault is that? I'll admit that social conservatism needs an overhaul; there's way too much emphasis on trying to enforce morality through laws, and they spend too much time hammering on some things that, in the grand scheme, wouldn't actually have much of a positive impact if they got their way.

But social conservatives are the one and only group of any size in America that are still carrying the torch for core American principles. For doing so, they are roundly reviled by nearly everyone else. Let's face it, leftism allows no negotiating room; we just re-elected a President whose basic negotiating position for the past four years has been "my way or the highway". To hit in the immigration issue, the Democrat position is amnesty and open borders. That's their starting and ending position, period. They have shown that they have learned from the Palestinians how to use negotiating tactically, to stall for time and demagogue the opposition. They have no intention of compromising on any of their positions.

And as for the white guys, particularly Southern ones, can you deny that we are now the pariahs of American society? We are the one group against whom it is socially acceptable to be bigoted, and affirmative-action laws assign us second-class citizen status. In any conflict with a woman or minority, it is the white guy who must give ground. We are passed over for employment and promotions at work, because our presence does not help with the AA quotas. Workplace harassment laws specifically exclude us from protection. And in any TV show or movie you care to name, the antagonist is nearly always a white male, while the protagonist is likely to be a minority. The minority is automatically accorded empathy by the audience; the white male is someone you can boo and not feel bad about it.

And the wife, who's loved this man for 20 years despite his abject stupidity, just sighs. All she wants her husband to do is listen ... just some evidence that he's even faintly aware of what's going on in her head. But when they try to talk it out, things just get worse ...

Is it just me, or did Matt Taibbi just call half the electorate a bunch of unhappily married women?

Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party. A lot of these people, believe it or not, would respond positively, or at least with genuine curiosity, to the traditional conservative message of self-reliance and fiscal responsibility.

So, did Matt Taibbi respond positively, or with genuine curiosity? I mean, he obviously knows what Republicans think, and clearly, he knows what Hispanics, women, and teenagers think. How is it he got the message when nobody else did? Is he smarter than all of them? What a condescending squonk! Talk about self-awareness.

Small government conservatism and social conservatism are interdependent, not mutually exclusive, ideologies.

The Republican Party leadership has failed to explain this to its own membership and to the wider electorate.

You can see that the Republicans are taking this "You can't piss off all the people all the time" strategy seriously by talking about immigration reform.

When have they not talked seriously about immigration reform? Bush 43 pushed it about 7 years ago. It took a concerted effort from we the people phoning the Congressional switchboard (and related meltdowns of said switchboard) to squash the effort.

Of course by comprehensive immigration reform they mean amnesty.

Ah yes. Because Matt Taibbi so much has the interest of Republicans at heart we should listen carefully to what he recommends.

One of the fundamental forces that militates against the Republicans being able to court minorities are the positions of the activist base (tea partiers and religious conservatives) that votes in primaries. This group is much further to the right on immigration, economic policy, and especially social issues than the American electorate, and they've proven to be willing to replace even solid conservatives who break from orthodoxy on a few positions (like Bob Bennett).

Getting the votes needed to win the nomination limits what a politician can do in the general to appeal to the broader electorate. In this presidential election, for example, the drawn-out primary season hurt Romney, as he was forced to tack ever right ward on issues in response to challenges from others with more solid conservative credentials. His share of the Latino vote was far below that of George W. Bush; one has to think that this was at least in part due to Romney's embrace of the hard-line immigration laws in places like Alabama and Arizona that Latinos feel target them irrespective of their immigration or citizenship status. Had Romney not felt the need to embrace that position he probably picks off enough Latino votes to win the election.

It was said by someone (Reagan, I think), that Latinos are Republicans; they just don't know it yet. Certainly the Latino community, and much of the Black community, is probably more aligned with Republicans than Democrats on social issues like gay marriage and abortion. However, Republicans will find it difficult to make this case as long as they, and their unofficial media mouthpieces, appear to racially demagogue issues. Sonia Sotomayor, with the same sort of background as the rest of the Supreme Court (Princeton, Yale Law, Prosecutor, Judge), was opposed by conservatives not just for her positions but for being an affirmative action appointment. Obama is often called an affirmative action president. Many in the conservative media – who are probably not personally racist - push racial buttons as part of their schtick (see "Barack the Magic Negro"; "Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people"; "Kenyan anti-colonialism"; "food stamp president"). It's difficult to win the votes of people who might be sympathetic to part of your message when your attacks on prominent members of their ethnic groups appear to have a racial component to them. [Attribution: Much of this last paragraph synthesizes points recently made in more detail by Matt Yglesias and Conor Friedersdorf on their blogs.]

The social conservatism of the Republican party also limits their appeal to other groups who might be receptive to their economic message. Romney lost decisively among jewish and asian voters, both affluent groups that don't fit the "maker versus taker" or "47 percent" narrative, largely because of the socially conservative aspects of the Republican platform. If those stances were moderated, the votes of these groups wouldn't go so decisively for the Democrats.

The Republican party has lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections. The post-Civil Rights-era Republican coalition is aging and shrinking. Republicans are going to need to find a way to appeal to different people or risk heading to irrelevance as a national party. Loosening the grip of the social conservatives on the platform and nomination process would go a long way toward doing so, as would cutting down on needless racial demagoguery in the media.

And as for the white guys, particularly Southern ones, can you deny that we are now the pariahs of American society?

That's me, and hell yes I can. I'm nobody's victim.

We are the one group against whom it is socially acceptable to be bigoted, and affirmative-action laws assign us second-class citizen status. In any conflict with a woman or minority, it is the white guy who must give ground.

God, I remember when being a man meant No Whining.

Every time I hear this issue raised in the media I fail to hear the mention of the party most responsible for restraining the civil rights of blacks and minorities in the South. They fail to mention that the KKK was started by the Democrats or that Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox et al were all Democrats and there is a good reason for that. The Democrat Party now espouses the socialist leftwing agenda of the majority of mainstream journalists.There are so many magnificent examples of minorities from all races who beat the odds of adversity and achieved the American Dream but those are not the ones promoted or glorified in the media because these individuals made it on their own. They built their businesses and success without the help of Big Government therefore these individuals do not fit the preferred template for the Progressive movement. Ben Carson, who's that? Thomas Sowell, Condoleezza Rice, Alan West, J.C. Watts and other pillars of the black community are not the biographical stories being told in the inner city schools. What we see representing minorities routinely appear on the Jerry Springer show or in YouTube viral videos of flash mob violence. In every single major city devastated by violence and mayhem, (e.g. Chicago, Detroit) the political party in power has kept the subculture addicted to government checks; and the resultant anarchy is exactly what was preordained by the Lenin/Marx ideology to destroy capitalism. How much better the black community would be if the Fourth Estate had instead heeded the goals of Martin Luther King who dreamt of a color-blind society which moved beyond color to the content of one's character. Then they would be able to see beyond the skin color of the President to the man he really is.
http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2012/08/14/racebaiting_and_the_resultant.html

God, I remember when being a man meant No Whining.

Posted by: Kevin at November 10, 2012 9:39 AM
___________________________________

Just curious - do you mean "no whining" as in "act, don't yak" - or something else?

An aside: When it comes to getting children, in particular, to stop whining, one problem is that the verb has more than one meaning, so kids don't always understand that "stop whining" often means "I already said no and you're making the exact same demand, so stop it."

And, from the mostly defunct Miss Manners newsgroup:

"If it is reasonable to punish a kid for whining (I'm not sure if it is or not), the parent must first make sure the kid understands what is meant by "whining". I remember that for part of my childhood I had no idea what the word whining actually meant (I think the concept was clarified in some book I read), and I thought it was arbitrarily applied to anything my parents didn't want me to say for whatever strange reasons grownups have for not wanting me to say something. I couldn't make a conscious choice to 'not whine', because I didn't know what that actually meant.

"I think it's also important that the parent understand why exactly the kid wants whatever they want, and that the kid understand exactly why
they can't have it. I know of a few unfortunate situations where the kid wanted, for example, a black schoolbag because having a green schoolbag was a offence that was punishable by being spat upon in the schoolyard, and the parent, unaware of what their kid was suffering, refused to buy a black one because the green one is in perfectly acceptable condition. This lead the kid to assume that the parent wanted them to be tormented. I also know of some situations in which the kid didn't know that they simply could not afford the item they coveted, and thought the parent was saying no for the sole purpose of making the child unhappy. I'm not a parent myself, but I doubt whatever sense of discipline or frugality or delayed gratification these parents were attempting to instill was worth the long-term loss of trust."

"Every time I hear this issue raised in the media I fail to hear the mention of the party most responsible for restraining the civil rights of blacks and minorities in the South. They fail to mention that the KKK was started by the Democrats or that Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox et al were all Democrats and there is a good reason for that."

There certainly is: those people switched to voting Republican in 1968 in Nixon's so-called Southern Strategy. The old Confederacy, solidly Democratic since Reconstruction became solidly Republican, as is mostly still the case. The passage of the Civil Rights act destroyed the old Democratic coalition and led to their party's losing the Presidency every election save one for 32 years.

Black male unemployment is twice that of white males, yet they all vote Dem all the time. Illegal immigrants take those entry-level, poorly paid jobs that almost no one else will take, and at a lower wage. If they weren't here, places might have to pay a bit more and black teenagers could get a foot in the door and learn how to go to work, be on time, curb the 'tude and so on. Now, they have so few changes to do so (when has anyone in LA seen a black bus-boy or valet parker?) and businesses have no reason to offer slightly better wages. Dems don't seem to think this is a problem as hey--everyone is going to college and be a web designer, right?
And women seem to believe that caring counts as action, just like worrying does. The Dems care more, so women feel good, even with no results or actions. The Republicans have a message problem, as well as an image problem, but they have results. The Dems talk the talk, with nothing to show for it.

chances, not changes. But you know what I meant.

"The Democrat Party now espouses the socialist leftwing agenda of the majority of mainstream journalists"

The only choice for the GOP is to steer an even harder far-right course, evict all RINOs who espouse working with the baby-killing Demonrats, and with this pure Conservatism win back the heart of Jesus Christ who will strike down the 80 Communists in Congress (as identified by Rep. Allen West, praise be his name) with His flaming sword of RIGHTeous vengeance!

Santorum 2016! No quarter for food stamp recipients and lackies of the left-wing Com Symps! Down with the enemies of the corporation! Attica! Attica!

"The Democrat Party now espouses the socialist leftwing agenda of the majority of mainstream journalists"

The only choice for the GOP is to steer an even harder far-right course, evicting all thoe RINOs who espouse working with the baby-killing Demonrats!

Santorum 2016! No quarter for food stamp recipients and lackies of the left-wing Com Symps! Down with the enemies of the blessed corporation!

I'm not out of order, YOU'RE out of order! Attica! Attica!

I like the second one better, actually. More to the point.

Anyway - from batshit crazy over the Presidential election results to batshit crazy over another race - here we have the aforementioned Rep. Allen West himself demanding to impound the ballots because ... wait for it ... he lost.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57548071/judge-denies-rep-wests-motion-to-impound-ballots/?tag=cbsnewsHardNewsFDArea;fdmodule

Taibbi really gets a kick outta how Limbaugh used the "well-spoken card" about Condolezza Rice -- but I guess he conveniently forgets that Biden said the same thing about Obama. Yeah, it was four years ago, but still. Taibbi isn't exactly the epitome of distilled analysis here, is he?

I live in a conservative district in California and our only minority candidate was a Republican black male in the primary. He ended up losing to a small government conservative who collects farm subsidies (even in good years) and is being investigated for breaking campaign rules.

Republicans deserved to lose...but just as much as the Democrats. The sad thing is is that one of the parties had to win the election.

It's going to be interesting to watch how the new Democrat super majority in California is going to work.

So, I read that 85% of muslims voted for Obama. No doubt because the Republicans are too socially conservative. The Latinos, predominantly Catholic and generally socially conservative voted for Obama. Blacks, who are generally against gay marriage voted for Obama.

Sorry these people aren't voting against Republican social conservatism.

Obama won - so, where the hell is MY Obamaphone?!

Charles, if you are desperately poor, you may qualify for a phone under the "Lifeline" program, initiated in 1984 under then-President Reagan. That's an Obamaphone.

I wasn't familiar with "Obamaphones" until this week, bur all of a sudden the phrase is everywhere. So I looked it up, and this is from the FTC.gov site.

Since 1985, the Lifeline program has provided a discount on phone service for qualifying low-income consumers to ensure that all Americans have the opportunities and security that phone service brings, including being able to connect to jobs, family and emergency services. In 2005, Lifeline discounts were made available to qualifying low-income consumers on pre-paid wireless service plans in addition to traditional landline service. Lifeline is part of the Universal Service Fund.

I think it's a terrible use of semi-public money (the USF is one of those mysterious line items at the end of every month's phone bill), but the dates point to Reagan for the landline and Bush II for the cellphone, not Obama.

Anyway, I plugged it into Google News to find out where people like Charles had heard about it; apparently it was the centerpiece of a Web campaign ad produced by a SuperPAC known as the Tea Party Victory Fund. It featured a black woman talking about her free government phone, which she seemed to think was due to the Obama administration's largesse.

All this "research" (two Google searches) was accomplished in less than 60 seconds. I'd be embarrassed to be that misled by a commercial, but I guess we all believe what we want to believe, whether it's Obamaphones or miracle diet aids or the Psychic Friends Network or whatever.

> The Left can sound preachy, but the Right never
> even bothered, this time around, to even try to
> be inclusive.

"Preachy" is understates things: Jehovah's Witnesses will, eventual, get bored, leave your living room and go out for a beer. But the left's fascination with intimacy from government ("inclusive") is unceasing.

The President is not your Dad. The taxpayer is not your father. I don't care whether you're lonely or not. I don't care whether you feel you've somehow been excluded from some national "self-awareness." I don't care about your interior life. I would not admire it if I did.

I hate people.

Fuck humanity... Fuck it in the ass.

Start with my neighbor, who's having some GD hardwood floors put in at 8 o'clock on a Sunday morning.

Also props to Chunk and Kevin for recognizing the genesis of Obamaphones.

Part of me is totally cool with Obama taking the heat for this bi-partisan project, since Boosh continues to draw so much ire from people who were never paying attention anyway.

But the phone thing also shows how incredibly leftoid the majority of the electorate is, whatever the party.

Similarly, the fact that so many Republicans this week think that all Hispanics care about is amnesty, all women want is abortions (and lots of them) and all teenagers want is to sit on their couches and smoke tons of weed legally, that tells you everything you need to know about the hopeless, anachronistic cluelessness of the modern Republican Party.

It tells you more about Tabibbi's echo chamber.

It was said by someone (Reagan, I think), that Latinos are Republicans; they just don't know it yet. Certainly the Latino community, and much of the Black community, is probably more aligned with Republicans than Democrats on social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

They're not "more aligned", they're far to the "right" of the Republican party. Yet you never see more than 15% of the vote in that direction.

However, Republicans will find it difficult to make this case as long as they, and their unofficial media mouthpieces, appear to racially demagogue issues.

Appear. Right. Which means as long as the major Media is a arm of the Democrat party, it'll never happen. Guess who Taibbi voted for? I'm pretty sure I know.

Talk about law, and it's considered "demogogue". Hold minorities to the same standard? Unfair.

Can you do math and realize that Greece is in better shape financially than we are?

RACIST!

Sonia Sotomayor, with the same sort of background as the rest of the Supreme Court (Princeton, Yale Law, Prosecutor, Judge), was opposed by conservatives not just for her positions but for being an affirmative action appointment.

I don't recall that at all. I recall her being opposed for her positions, which were pretty bad, and for her comments about a "wise latina" being better than a white man at making judgements. (Of law?)

The last 4 elections have had the same pattern.

GOP nominates a leftish candidate, they run, get painted as Ayn Rand's Zombie. Pick a better candidate as VP, with real experience and conservative credentials, then try and hide them.

Bush? NEVER RAN AS A CONSERVATIVE. I realize that was all of 12 years ago, but when he was running, his platform was "Compassionate Conservatism". IE: We can run Big Government better than you. We can help.

And Bush was hated - I lost many friendships during that campaign and early days of the administration when friends frothed that Ashcroft was going to be setting up concentration and death camps for homosexuals - before Sept 11th.

After Sept 11th, people rallied behind him, and that terrified the Democrats (including the Media) and they went on permanent attack.

McCain? He was loved by the press - as long as he was hamstringing Bush or other Republicans. So the "establishment" sorts figured, hey, the Press loves him!

And as soon as he was the candidate, the press savaged him as slightly worse than Jenghis Khan. There was no enthusiasm for him - until he picked his VP - and then it was standing room only.

(So it was her fault he lost, according to the Media and establishment GOP.)

Same thing. Romney wasn't enthusiastically supported, despite the monumental train-wrecks that had occurred in the administration. Until he picked Ryan as a VP.

Standing. Room. Only.

And then they made sure Ryan stayed "on message" - no more slipups like when Palin strayed from "the message". And he disappeared from the scene.

So, from this, of course, you can draw that the important thing for the Republicans is to become the Democrat party, and promise more to more people.

IOW: The "only solution" is to run more to the "left". It's almost like the people writing this have a vested interest.

> you can't win votes when you're calling
> people lazy, stoned moochers.

We note that Taibbi doesn't actually say the Republicans are wrong, he just says they're losing.

I certainly agree that Romney failed to connect with voters. But the kind of connection voters want in these simpleminded, oh-so-compassionate times of ours is not the kind of thing that a thoughtful conservative is inclined to provide... Not from either Bush, not from McCain, and not from Romney. Those men didn't get to their stations in life by being all touchy-feely. Conservatism, at its best, is about self-reliance, stoicism, and staying out of other people's way.

The last republican who could sell in a populist market was Reagan, and he needed thirty+ years of training in Hollywood before he could bridge the gap.

Some of these are good.

I failed my due diligence when I neglected to measure Mitt's ability to organize and lead his campaign, including his gotv operation in the battleground states. I too readily accepted Karl's assurances. This is something I paid for with wasted campaign contributions from my dividends, something my finance colleagues paid for with wasted contributions from their capital gains.
I apologize to Republicans and, especially, my fellow shareholders.

Per Chunktastic and Kevin, here's more about the Lifeline program:

It’s true that Lifeline’s costs doubled in five years to $1.75 billion in 2011 while tens of millions of dollars have been lost to fraud. Surveys found an average of 9 percent of Lifeline users in 17 states and territories were ineligible for the program, while recent audits found 400,000 instances of one person — or one household — having more than one subsidized connection. Some phones were sold for cash on Craigslist.

The FCC, however, overhauled the program in February, enacting changes that call for building databases to confirm beneficiaries’ eligibility and to identify duplicate subscriptions. The FCC also slashed 75 percent of available subsidies for the program, which eliminated a “perverse” incentive for some phone companies to enroll ineligible persons.

Robert M. McDowell, the FCC Commissoner who initiated the overhaul in February, was appointed by George W. Bush and re-appointed by Barack Obama in 2009. He sounds like a good hand, yo.

Anyway, I plugged it into Google News to find out where people like Charles had heard about it; apparently it was the centerpiece of a Web campaign ad produced by a SuperPAC known as the Tea Party Victory Fund.

When David Frum joined the Tea Party movement, I knew that it was doomed to fail.

When the gov't won't spend the money we don't have, our economy deflates. It's absurd how Frum and the spendthrift Tea Partiers don't understand this. It's basic economics, one would think. David Frum, the Tea Party, and the mainstream newspapers don't get it.

He sounds like a good hand, yo. -- Jason S. at November 11, 2012 3:31 PM

Jason,

Thanks for the research. A very comprehensive link.

I think that McDowell sounds like he is a guy that is doing his job, especially if you read his Wiki profile.

The Obamaphone phenomena is like any other. Many people will abuse it until caught. It sounds like he worked with the civilians/ non-governmental agencies to fix.

Now if we can get the rest of the government to be a small and limited and use NGAs to do the regulation.

When David Frum joined the Tea Party movement, I knew that it was doomed to fail.

Posted by: Jason S. at November 11, 2012 3:54 PM

Jason, you should comment here more often.

I failed my due diligence when I neglected to measure Mitt's ability to organize and lead his campaign, including his gotv operation in the battleground states.

I wondered about this, too, and suspect that it may have a lot to do with Mitt's experience being primarily in the private equity/LBO worlds. He's never run a traditional company before, and done management day-in and -out of niggling little details. It's possible that he missed these things in his campaign; I've read reports that his ground game relied heavily on an untested mobile app for GOTV efforts, and that they had no plan B when that failed.

"Appear. Right. Which means as long as the major Media is a arm of the Democrat party, it'll never happen."

Sorry, shouldn't hedge. Not appear. If Republicans spend a few years not saying shit like this, they might start winning over black voters:

• “And so I’m prepared if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps,”


• Well, it — what it’s going to be here, it’s actually a biracial cookie. You’ve got three of the chocolate wafers, and then you’ve got the white vanilla cream — the cream…. And Kraft comes up with the Or-Bam-eo, the triple double-dipper.


• We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.

Schubeddi:

If Republicans spend a few years not saying shit like this, they might start winning over black voters:

No. They won't.

Cherry pick comments. You can find worse from Harry Reid. Not to mention Joe Biden. Even without going to Robert Byrd.

Ignoring reality is the opposite of what the Republicans can afford to do. There is no way the Republicans can out-pander or out-"sympathize" the Democrats. No matter how they "control" the "message".

Which, by the way, what's incorrect about the quotes you pulled? (And who said them, and what's their leadership role in the party?)

Dude if you don't understand why black people would find those comments offensive and wrong, you are beyond help. And the people: former speaker of the house and presidential candidate; popular conservative media personality; state senator.

I asked you what was incorrect about them.

I didn't ask about feelings.

I also said that you can find worse from Reid and Biden.

Funny thing, that doesn't seem to hurt "feelings" so much.

Which party presides over the worst cities with majority black population, and how well are those policies treating them?

So, back to facts, what's incorrect about your quotes?

Because, really, that's my point. As long as you're worried about "feelings" then there's no possible way for the Republicans to out-bid the Democrats. Especially with the media out to reinforce your viewpoint.

So. Facts?

Cause most Republicans in my experience can argue facts.

Wouldn't be trying to sabotage the next election would you?

Cause, that hurts my feelings.

And the wife, who's loved this man for 20 years despite his abject stupidity, just sighs

If he was stupid, how come he was able to get her cadillacs and fur coats? And if she loved him, why did she even ask for all these things in the first place instead of just cooking for him and staying in the house which he bought for her? Of course, such men would have been poor listeners, but then I doubt the women were better listeners either.