Pages

Jump to bottom

13 comments

1 iossarian  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:14:35am

I don’t know, man. Sounds from the article as if the general tone of the race is such that:

a) In public, the local party people are playing by the rules - she’s not getting any special treatment, but nor are they specifically throwing obstacles in her way

b) Behind closed doors, some (not all) of the “old white guys” don’t want her in the race because they don’t trust her, largely because of her non-traditional (for them) background

In response, Harold says she wants “not preferential treatment, but a fair playing field”.

For those of us who observe that the combination of a and b is *exactly* why affirmative action continues to be necessary to enable minorities to experience a “fair playing field”, it’s kind of ironic that Harold says she wants exactly the thing her stated policies (and those of her chosen political party) work to undermine.

2 Skip Intro  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:16:39am

The GOP will always be the GOP.

But Harold’s own welcome was short-lived. A week later, Jim Allen, a GOP county chairman in the 13th district, sent a message to an independent Republican website that began, “Rodney Davis will win and the love child of the D.N.C. will be back in Shitcago by May of 2014 working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires.” He also wrote that Harold was being used “like a street walker.”

I have to question her intelligence in being a Republican. Isn’t their opinion of you obvious?

3 iossarian  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 10:24:25am

re: #2 Skip Intro

The GOP will always be the GOP.

I have to question her intelligence in being a Republican. Isn’t their opinion of you obvious?

To be fair, if you’re hanging out with the elite at Harvard and in white shoe law firms, you probably don’t get exposed to that much discrimination any more, because those guys are pretty well house-trained.

But then you scratch beneath the surface a little, and it’s same old same old.

4 nines09  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 11:05:10am

re: #3 iossarian

Perfect example of “Can’t see the forest for the trees.”

5 funky chicken  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 11:16:40am
She calls herself a constitutional conservative. She is anti-abortion rights, pro-gun, believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. She does not support marijuana legalization. She wants to repeal Obamacare.

Gross. Just the same old ugly positions with a pretty face slapped on the front. I hope she loses.

6 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 11:31:06am

re: #1 iossarian

I don’t know, man. Sounds from the article as if the general tone of the race is such that:

a) In public, the local party people are playing by the rules - she’s not getting any special treatment, but nor are they specifically throwing obstacles in her way

b) Behind closed doors, some (not all) of the “old white guys” don’t want her in the race because they don’t trust her, largely because of her non-traditional (for them) background

In response, Harold says she wants “not preferential treatment, but a fair playing field”.

For those of us who observe that the combination of a and b is *exactly* why affirmative action continues to be necessary to enable minorities to experience a “fair playing field”, it’s kind of ironic that Harold says she wants exactly the thing her stated policies (and those of her chosen political party) work to undermine.

The rules are there to keep all newcomers out, not just black ones. It may be the same playing field other newcomers play on, but the design of the field is such that the old guard is empowered to choose who gets in. This allows them to keep her out for what ever reason they come up with, which won’t be her race (as the public reason) for all but Jim Allen, who had to resign for his remarks.

I wonder whether Erika Harold wants to expose and change this system, or be let in.

7 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 11:43:02am

re: #2 Skip Intro

The GOP will always be the GOP.

I have to question her intelligence in being a Republican. Isn’t their opinion of you obvious?

It is possible for intelligent people to have incorrect (or differing) opinions. Questioning her intelligence for disagreeing with you is rude. I’m sure she’s accustomed to being hated by a certain percentage of any group, which would include local Democrats.

re: #5 funky chicken

Gross. Just the same old ugly positions with a pretty face slapped on the front. I hope she loses.

She will lose, to someone with even more odious beliefs. This is only the primary.

8 Skip Intro  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 4:42:51pm

re: #7 wrenchwench

I’m not questioning her intelligence for disagreeing with me. I’m questioning her intelligence for joining and trying to run in a party that holds her in complete disdain.

Rodney Davis will win and the love child of the D.N.C. will be back in Shitcago by May of 2014 working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires.” He also wrote that Harold was being used “like a street walker.

What do the leaders of the GOP have to do to give her a clue, pee in her face?

9 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 5:00:57pm

re: #8 Skip Intro

I’m not questioning her intelligence for disagreeing with me. I’m questioning her intelligence for joining and trying to run in a party that holds her in complete disdain.

Rodney Davis will win and the love child of the D.N.C. will be back in Shitcago by May of 2014 working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires.” He also wrote that Harold was being used “like a street walker.

What do the leaders of the GOP have to do to give her a clue, pee in her face?

Until a very short time ago, both parties held people like her in disdain, both for being female and for being black. She holds political positions that are more in line with those of the Republicans, she and her father are taking them up on their words of ‘rebranding’, and challenging the party to live up to them.

Both parties have peed in the faces of women for as long as they have existed, except the Democrats have mostly quit doing that recently. Women have to go into those circumstances to make change. Harold should have your encouragement for trying to gain acceptance for people like herself, not your opprobrium for trying.

It’s rude to question her intelligence for doing this.

10 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 5:10:02pm

re: #9 wrenchwench

It’s almost always rude to question someone’s intelligence over political party affiliation.

However, I honestly can’t come up with any other term than ‘stupid’ to describe the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud.

The case of Erika Harold is a bit more nuanced since the GOP isn’t really thinking of pogroms to root all women out of society. Complacent broodmares will always have the approval of the so-con right.

11 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:01:34pm

re: #10 EPR-radar

It’s almost always rude to question someone’s intelligence over political party affiliation.

However, I honestly can’t come up with any other term than ‘stupid’ to describe the Log Cabin Republicans and GOProud.

The case of Erika Harold is a bit more nuanced since the GOP isn’t really thinking of pogroms to root all women out of society. Complacent broodmares will always have the approval of the so-con right.

When a gay person has values in line with the Republicans, and they want to be politically active, maybe even have a political career, what should they do? Change their values? Or join the party that shares their values and try to change the party into one that accepts them?

Same questions for black people and other people of color. Same for women.

Maybe Log Cabin Republicans thought they could create acceptance within the Republican Party. Maybe they still do. Maybe they are right. Do you think it would be smarter for them to give up fighting for what they believe in because you know it’s hard for them to take the insults, the degradation, the micro- and macro-aggressions they will and do encounter? Or because you disagree with the tactic of trying to change the party? Or…?

If they abandon the Republicans. it won’t mean they won’t have to face those things. They are everywhere.

My ideal is to convince people to share my values. I’d like to convince Erika Harold to be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. But if I can’t, it is in keeping with my values to support her in fighting racism. If she wants to take on the Republican Party as her venue for that battle, I support her.

When it comes to women’s right to abortion, I’ll fight her if I can’t convince her.

12 wrenchwench  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:08:49pm

The Republican Party must be lonely like law school. Doesn’t mean you don’t belong there.

Youtube Video

13 EPR-radar  Thu, Feb 13, 2014 6:14:55pm

re: #11 wrenchwench

These are good points. “stupid” is probably too harsh for someone who chooses extremely unfavorable grounds for a political fight (e.g., the Log Cabin Republicans/GOProud agitating for acceptance from the GOP).

That said, gays in the GOP is probably the most extreme example of cognitive dissonance out there, since a significant fraction of the GOP really does want to kill the gays.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh