The GOP’s senseless divisive rhetoric on talk radio

(Stay classy, Jeff Crank – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Obviously, as a political culture, we've moved beyond civility–not that we were ever so civil. But it's hard to deny that America does embrace differences more than it did historically.

Given how rude America is, you wouldn't expect Colorado Springs talk-radio host Jeff Crank to be nice on the radio. But we can expect a baseline of inclusiveness without senseless divisive rhetoric.

So what's to gain from Crank's attack below, delivered Sat. on KVOR, other than to foment division?

Sheila Jackson Lee who is a –she’s a doofus! I mean, I don’t know any other way to say it. She’s – she’s a member of Congress – a female member of Congress – a Congresswoman. Uh, she happens to be African American. Actually, she’s black. I can’t stand the term African American. I hate it. I hate ‘Italian- American,’ ‘African American.’ I hate all of that! We’re Americans! She happens to be black. And if that offends her, I didn’t intend to do such, but if you’re that sensitive, get a life.

You can let this slide by, and maybe that's the best thing to do, but you can also say there's no reason for it, especially if you're a Republican like Crank, who twice ran for Congress and was inches away from winning.

As left-leaning operative Brad Woodhouse reminds us in a Hill opinion piece title "New Year, Same Old Party," Crank-type rhetoric is driving the GOP itself into oblivion, despite the party's own recognition of the "eye-rolling" that Republicans evoke.

Crank can look at our country and see "all Americans." And others can be affirm their heritages whatever they might be. Why can't Crank let it be. And we can all sort of get along. Why does Crank need to do this?

12 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Whiskey Lima JulietWhiskey Lima Juliet says:

    I love this! At this point it is clear to everyone that the GOP has massive race issues.  Let them keep talking.  And as for African American, how dare he decide what people want to call themselves.  I kind of like the term "Completely Unelectable Men (CUM)", instead of GOP. 

     

     

     

  2. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Jason,

    Thanks for the update.  

    A right wing talk show host thinks Sheila Jackson Lee is an idiot.  Most everyone else does too.

    A left wing blogger thinks the GOP is being driven into oblivion.

    What's next a left wing blogger thinks Rush Limbaugh is offensive or a right wing talk show host thinks the Dems are doomed?

     

    • Curmudgeon says:

      AC,

      Sheila Jackson Lee is kind of an idiot. And you're still a chickenshit racist who likes to dance around and not say anything too overt, while still saying enough to give yourself a little thrill.  

  3. BlueCat says:

    Has Crank also been railing against Irish-Americans celebrating their Irishness during St. Patrick's Day festivities? Scottish-Americans showing off their clan plaids? If so I missed it. 

    Is he saying black is OK but not African American (or Italian-American for some reason) because black is simply a skin color, not an ethinic origin? If so I've got to say I don't know any black people. I've got black clothing and a sweet little black cat but all the people I know range from shades of pale beige to dark brown. Sometimes one of the beige ones turns bright red for a few days.

    It would be fun to see him on the Colbert Report being interviewed by parody rightie pundit, Stephen Colbert (as opposed to actual comedian Stephen Colbert) who literally can't see color.

  4. Miss Jane says:

    It looks like the John Birch Society won the battle for the GOP.  They are all Birchers now. 

    The only part of government they want is the military.  That is totally the opposite of any original intent.  The founders did not envision a standing army, hence the 2nd amendment.  They want to put a stake in the heart of democratic government.

    They remind me of the people in underground Topeka in "A Boy and His Dog" by Harlan Ellison.  Sick.

    • Old Time Dem says:

      The Second Amendment doesn't really have anything to do with how the framers of the Constitution thought about standing armies. After all, it's an amendment…

      More indicative of the framers view is Article I, Section 8, which limits the power of Congress by forbidding appropriations for "Armies" of no more than two years.

       

  5. RavenDawg says:

    Not to sympathize with this overt rascism but I see this as a symptom of a deeper problem:

    Namely, the declining economic well-being (= income disparity in current political rhetoric) and corresponding pessimism about the future outlook of this demographic.  When the economic pond shrinks, the people who are getting squeezed feel most threatened by those who are below them on the ladder.  Of course rascism is real and it is still potent in this country (sorry, Judge Thomas) but it is exacerbated by economic conditions.  

    In my view the whole Tea Party/xenophobic/rascist/etc bent of the current Repub party base is in large part being driven by their overall declining and uncertain economic circumstances.  I would argue that this is a maladaptive response in that they are turning away from the traditional role of govt to level the economic playing field and turning toward bogus "free enterprise" that is only screwing them, but they are reacting to economic stress just as surely as the Occupy movement, only in different direction.

    I don't know how to reach these folks because their premises are 180 degree opposite, but just bashing without looking deeper misses the larger point IMO.  (And I'm talking about the ordinary folks, not Coffman–he's just an opportunistic jerk, trying to hold onto his cushy do-nothing job.)

    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

      "In my view, the whole Tea Party/xenophobic/rascist/etc bent of the current Repub party base is in large part being driven by the overall declining and uncertain economic circumstances."

      There appears to be a merger taking place inside the Party….

       

      • RavenDawg says:

        That's a question I've asked myself a lot:

        Why do rank and file Repubs back fat-cat Wall Streeters and bought-and-sold politicians who vote against the interests of those ordinary voters? 

        The best answer I can come up with is that for some people in the context of diminishing economic well-being and increasing uncertainty, prosperity becomes a zero-sum game: Any income you give in taxes to invest in govt to improve the lot of others (and hence increase the general std of living) is less that you have for yourself.  So you oppose "big govt," and Wall Streeters are the ultimate examples of that philosophy–they give as little as possible and get as much as possible, they show it can be done, at least if you believe their rhetoric.

        You seem to be familiar with the thinking in the Tea Party Republic, what say you?

        Sorry for incoherence, just wanted to leave a reply before crashing for the night.  I enjoy reading your comments.  -RD

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          I've dealt with factions of them on Capitol Hill – and my home county, Yuma, happened to muster an 80% "Yes" vote for the secession movement.  This, a county that has literally benefitted from hundreds of millions of dollars in federal subsidies over the past decade.  ($547 million to be exact).

          As I said earlier, I could get behind a good many of their concerns regarding government (particularly at the federal level) in the early days.  I wouldn't be interested in being within a mile of them today.  While I have a slight libertarian streak within me, I am passionate about social justice.  That puts my squarely in the other corner of the boxing ring for the (generally useless) mouthpieces they have today. 

          If there were a Nobel Prize for ignorance, the first class would be overflowing. 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.