U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 06, 2008 08:09 PM UTC
85 Comments
…Bob is not responsible for his son’s postings or anything else. As a maker of laws, you should know that.
Would it be smart for Bob to say that he disagrees with his son’s beliefs, of course.
Will he? I doubt it.
This smells like political expediency to me. Let’s be careful lest this backfires, eh?
The public loves stuff like pictures of politicians parasailing, Paris Hilton ads, and teenager’s facebook pages. This story has legs. No reason to make it look like you’re pushing it. Udall is taking the smart tack by saying “no comment, I’m running a positive campaign”. If someone is self destructing it’s better to stand back and watch.
God bless ‘er, is someone Schaffer and Wadhams can ignore. But her statement gives the story legs and keeps it on the news another day. So even if she doesn’t get an answer, it helps with the legs.
“That’s not what they meant” when they made a monkey Obama sock puppet.
“That’s not what they meant” when McCain laughed at Hillary being called a bitch.
“That’s not what they meant” when McCain called his wife a cunt.
“Oh, that’s not what we meant” by repeating the name of Hussein, implying that a name that appears in your bible that has had many honorable namesakes is somehow bad. Is the name Timothy or McVeigh given the same treatment?
“That’s not what they meant” in the ad with the white women and Harold Ford, Jr.
How many times are we going to accept, “that’s not what was meant”. They know what they mean and so do the rest of us. We can no longer accept this as a justification for racial ignorance. It happens all to often, and I am personally sick of it.
Sorry to post part of my diary – BUT I AM NOT LETTING YOU ALL GET AWAY THIS ANYMORE!!!!!!
…and rightfully so! You keep on keeping on!
Keep the fires burning. We’ll need your incisive commentary! Battle on.
Yet we are to believe that Barack Obama is responsible for his pastor’s comments, a guest pastor’s comments at his church, his wife’s comments and 30 year old writings of an acquaintence of his; and Hillary Clinton is reponsible for her husband’s comments?
Can someone please explain the rules to me? Because it is sounding like Republicans are responsible for nothing their family, associates or they themselves say or do while Democrats are responsible for everything any acquaintence of their says or does…
Republicans aren’t even responsible for what their campaign managers say, or what they say themselves. You got a problem with that?
I’ll take a stab at it.
In my mind the difference is this: Obama goes to a church for 20 years where the preacher spouts racist stuff. By attending and listening to that for 20 years, you either a) agreed with it, or b) weren’t really going. As such you are either a) a racist too or b) a liar.
In a situation like Schaffer’s son, you have a child who has displayed poor judgement, but it’s not like Bob Schaffer had the picture from his son’s facebook page on the wall of his office for the last 20 years. Neither has his son spent the last 20 years telling his dad that “slavery gets shit done” and Schaffer decided to do something about it only after the press made an issue about it.
In short, the difference is in one case a person turned a blind eye towards something horrible for a long time. In the other case, a candidate’s child did something stupid. Other then the fact that both involve someone running for office, I really don’t see the comparision.
The consistent theme throughout that page leads one to believe that crap like this did occur day by day in the Schaffer household. That’s what makes this important.
And Bob Schaffer has yet to say he even finds what was done wrong and offensive. He clearly wishes it hadn’t happened, but that’s a very different answer.
Let’s look at this a slightly different way. Little Schaffer hears all of the attacks on his dad about supposedly supporting slavery and thinks it’s ridiculous. He comes across this stupid “slavery gets shit done” thing and thinks “that’s funny and ironic. That will really piss off the people that hate my dad.” and puts it on his facebook page.
But people here automatically assume that Schaffer must has raised his boy by reading him stories about how slavery is a good thing. It’s like a game to see how bad you [not you David, but some people in general] can make someone look without having any evidence.
Everyone says stupid things (I do more often than most). And everyone goes a bit too far on a given subject regularly.
What got me was that he was denigrating everyone, slavery, gays, African-Americans. (And I give him a pass on the stuff about women because that does seem to be so very common amoung boys that age.)
The other half is if you read Bob Schaffer’s statement, there was nothing in it where he said he thought what was expressed was wrong. That would have been the first thing out of my mouth – that it was wrong and how.
blasphemous portions.
I don’t see “shit” as holy—even if you put a halo on it.
I also don’t imagine that the Jesus Christ that I know and worship would pose for a picture in front of the Confederate Flag with a machine gun slung over his shoulder.
One or two off-color jokes or posters could be a quirk, could be a mistake. But young Schaffer’s online presence depicts a consistent world view.
So you and I would have handled the situation differently. But the truth is we really don’t know what’s going on in the Schaffer household, it would be just as easy to argue that Schaffer is trying to keep from further embarassing his son.
Too many people are assuming the worst because it fits preconceived notions people have about who they want Schaffer to be-for purely political purposes.
If that’s the game we’re going to start playing, fine. Obviously Al Gore told his son to drive recklessly, George H.W. Bush told his son to snort coke and be an alcoholic, John McCain obviously taught his daughter to be fashionable and to blog all the time.
Is that what they meant?
Like when Rosemary’s husband said he was attacked and racist words carved into his chest while gallantly serving his country in WWII. Turned out everything he said was just plain false. What was meant by that?
Rosemary is just trying to get her name in the paper. Her most undistinguished career serving the insurance lobby in the Legislature is about to come to an end.
Can you prove this claim you’re making about Marshall’s husband?
Because if you can’t, it should be deleted as potentially slanderous.
Rosemary Marshall was married to former Lt. Gov. Brown who made a false claim that he had been attacked after crash landing in a Southern field during WWII. Turned out the story was completely made up. Perhaps it was the environment created by Rosemary that caused him to do that.
By the way, slander applies to the spoken word libel to the written.
So you are saying as a Black women she can not voice her distaste with this situation?
Shooting the messenger – effective come back for those who are intellectually absent and can not see the facts.
The fact is Rosemary has NOTHING to do with the Schaffer family values. She does however, have something to do with a punk kid raising the level of hatred against her race. And therefore raising the level of hatred in America.
When we get to the point that it is ok, under ANY circumstances to post racial motivated hatred, we are opening the door for increased violence. It was ok in 60s to say and write hateful comments about another race – whites felt they were privileged enough to do so.
I will be damned before I give anyone that permission ever again. I have the RNC in my crosshairs. They have taken way too many hateful liberties and claimed, “Oh, that’s not what we meant” for so long. So, I am collecting all of those moments and will continue to post them.
I then dare anyone to see a long list of hatred from every level of the RNC –
McCain, Schaffer, their supporters and some of the bloggers on this site and look my in the eye and say that the Republican Party is not race baiting. Pat Buchanan said it on CNN. If 94% of Blacks vote Democratic, why do we care if they are pissed off (not his exact words) we are going after the white vote.
To me that was sad a commentary on the state of White America. That in SOME CASES, your hatred of other races is so deep you don’t care enough about the human feelings of what you are posting, saying or implying. Enough is enough.
Provide some links to your accusations or apologize for posting slanderous material. The reverse racism rant is particularly odious when practiced by people trying to hide their own racism.
I disagree with your classifying Schaffer’s spawn as a “child”. He’s a 20 years-old man.
Second, the fact that the Schaffer spawn apparently finds it acceptable to post racist, anti-gay and blasphemous (Jesus Christ posing in front of a Confederate Flag with a machine gun hoisted over his shoulder/a pile of feces presented as “holy” with a halo over it) begs the question as to what type of household he was raised in.
Obama spent, if we assume he attended church every week for 20 years and the services lasted for 1 hour each (I’m UCC and they are like clockwork), approximately 1040 hours in the presence of Rev. Wright. The Schaffer spawn has spent far more time in the presence of his father (unless you are saying that the elder Schaffer abandoned his children–{like McCain abandoned his first wife but that is another issue}, in which case we have an even better campaign issue) than Obama spent in the presence of the Rev. Wright. So who exercised more influence over whom? Who bears more responsibility?
I’m trying not to, so let me try again.
Schaffer’s son is Schaffer’s child. Referring to him as Schaffer’s child is accurate, no? I am my father’s child, correct?
Having said that, you are correct that Schaffer’s son is an adult. Adults make their own choices, sometimes regardless of how they were raised. As Colorado Political pointed out, there are other public official’s children who have done stupid things. I suspect that based on your line of thinking, they are all unfit as they purposefully raised child with the sole purpose of making mistakes.
Hopefully you see that such a prospect is absurd.
Schaffer can’t make choices for his son. He can’t decide on his son’s behalf what his son thinks is funny or appropiate. Especially given the fact that his son is an adult.
Obama on the other hand made his own choice to go to a church for 20 years and listen to racist sermons. He was an adult and he chose to go and stay for whatever reasons-none of which seem to be good ones (whether it be that he agreed with it, lied about going, or went for purely political purposes).
You are passing judgment on a person for something they didn’t do (Schaffer) while making excuses for someone who did do something (Obama attending a racist church for 20 years). Personally, I assign more blame to the person who, you know, actually did something over the person who didn’t do anything.
Remember, we’re responsible for the choices we make-no one else. That’s why they’re different
Give me a break that Obama’s church was a hot bed of reverse racism. What a schmuck to even go there. I live in the mountains and go to church for the community experience. I’ve had preachers come and go and I didn’t agree with some of there views but no preacher is going to run me off from my congregation. You obviously understand little of the social dynamics of a church to make such crude conclusions about the reasons Obama’s attendance. “Obama listens to 1000 hours of racism!”. What a bunch of malarkey.
whose policy for many years was that it was cool to discriminate against Blacks. Pay him no mind. He knows no better. Sad, that their are still these mind sets in America.
Because the Mormon Church did change on this. If you’re going to require perfection from inception the list of people and groups you will find acceptable is going to be wafully short.
Because Mo Udall brought national attention to the racism of the church. Not only had he left the church in protest, but when he ran for president in 1976 Jimmy Carter managed to organize a fairly nasty and public anti-Mormon campaign against Udall in places like Detroit.
Lots of bad press in ’76 revived by bad press about Carter’s presidency and “what if” stories in ’78 and the church had a sudden revelation. Of course it’s great that they had it (whatever the inspiration), though they have a long way yet to go to stamp out institutionalized racism.
He wasn’t active, but he didn’t leave the church. Sorry.
Likewise you also don’t what you’re talking about in your assertion that the church has institutional racism
I stopped going to my church because I was fed up with its homophobia, though I suppose I’ll technically always be a member, and I still get the newsletter.
I say I left the church. Are you saying I didn’t?
The LDS church still “recommends” against interracial marriages in the Aaronic priesthood manual. That’s one small example of the church’s well-documented institutionalized racism.
Now I believe that, as is happening in the rest of society, that will go away as the older leadership dies off. And I also believe there is a concerted (though insufficient) effort to heal past racial wounds. But it will take time, and I think anyone looking at the situation honestly would come to that realization. Racism in the church did not go from 100% to 0% in 1978, nor in the 30 years since.
If you say you left your church that’s fine. That’s good enough for me. Udall never said he left the LDS church, he said he stopped going in protest. Yes, there is a difference there, he didn’t say he left nor did he officially ask for his name to be removed from the records, so he didn’t leave by your standards or mine.
About your “well documented example” of racism based on the Aaronic Priesthood Manual-I assume you phyically have a recent copy of the manual that you are referencing?
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/in…
And I don’t see anything that says “don’t marry inter-racially”
Granted it’s a quote from 1977, but it’s still in the current manual.
The closest thing on the link you provided is this:
In neither that quote or in yours does it say that inter-racial relationships are a sin. Nor is it implied.
What they’re saying is this: when you are making your decision about who to marry, take into consideration differences in economic status, ethnic background, education, and religion as major differences in these areas can cause marital problems.
How is that racist?
Do you really think that’s what I’m saying, that a church has to be perfect? I’ll tell you that it’s a little hard to seperate your comments from some of the other less informed ones above (who have tried to escape the issue at hand on the back of the Mormon Church).
It has nothing to do with whether a church never changes their theology, or perfection from inception. But if you see a preacher telling an eager congregation that “it’s not God bless America, it’s God damn America” as growing pains or striving for perfection or as simply evolving then so be it. I just expect the same level of understanding and forgiveness and benefit of the doubt to be extended towards Schaffer and his son’s actions.
I was saying that the church was to be comended for changing and that it was not right to hold the past against them as we all have made mistakes.
I was confused…with all of these responses I got confused. Sorry.
All I was trying to do was point out that the two situations (Obama and Schaffer’s son) aren’t the same.
The difference here is EVERYONE will tell about all the good Obama’s church has done in the community it represents. Rev. Wright and many Black churches speak about what America has done to Blacks, Native Americans and Japanese. Haners, you have to agree our past is not the rosy Rockwell paintings. That was apparently one sermon among 1000s. However, I am making no excuses – the sermon was wrong and Obama did the right thing.
This kid took aim at a particular group and felt so good about it, he posted it on his personal website for the world to see. Things I believed that I knew my parents wouldn’t like, I kept hidden from them. Obviously Lil Schaffer felt fine with his dad and the rest of the world seeing this.
How long was it posted before it grew into an issue? Are you telling me that Daddy Schaffer only saw it when it hit POLS?
that say Rev. Wright never ever used that kind of rhetoric in Sunday morning sermons. They say his Sunday morning sermons were hardly different than any other UCC sermon, but with a gospel twist.
When he used his fiery rhetoric it was apparently at the Sunday evening sermons, where he was appealing to a different crowd.
They also say Wright seems to have become more extreme of late. 8 years of GWB will do that to people, but so will age. Some people mellow out when they get older, some people get more pointed.
I left the church where I grew up because the pastor whose sermons were once known for their inclusiveness punctuated by witty, biting humor had devolved into a standup routine of anti-Jewish snark and AIDS jokes with no real message other than “we’re better than those dirty homosexuals.”
People change, even venerated pastors and champions of civil rights.
I would have left that church too!
You bring up some valid points, but I think they would hold more water if Schaffer’s son was a 16 year old living at home. Yeah, when we were at home, we hid things from our parents.
But Schaffer’s son is an adult. We I started living on my own, I didn’t care what my parent’s thought. I didn’t have to hide the fact that I like R rated action movies, Family Guy, or that I stayed out until 3:00 in the morning.
Bob Schaffer is running for a major political office. His days start early and end late, packed with fundraisers, speeches, meetings, etc. I’m sure that at the end of a busy day, he doesn’t sit down and look at his kid’s “facebook” pages to make sure there isn’t anything offensive.
Just like how Giuliani didn’t know that his daughter was an Obama friend on Facebook until the media told him.
But I bet candidates will be checking their kid’s pages now…. 🙂
For some people, church is the place to grow closer to God.
And I assume Gilpin Guy, if you are intellectually honest and attacking someone over things that they supposedly have no control over, I would suspect that at any moment you will condemn “Chaffee (I)” for doing the same to me?
I can’t wait to see whether you do, or if you just come up with some sort of justification.
but I would say that the Schaffer spawn is more appropriately called “Schaffer’s son” as opposed to “Schaffer’s child”. The term “child” conveys age in a way that the term “son” does not, and in this case, I would speculate was used by you to present him in a more endearing light in an attempt to excuse his behavior as a childish error.
President Bush is accurately described as former President Bush’s son…not his child. Mark Udall is more accurately described as Morris Udall’s son…not his child.
What I am doing is holding a parent accountable for the apparent bigotry that his son holds. Parents have instill a sense of values in their children when they are raising them. It would appear that the lesson on bigotry=bad (if there was one) did not take in the younger Schaffer.
Yeah, sure. But let’s not debate semantics-I think we know what each other is trying to say, and that’s probably the important thing.
Also, I appreciate your willingness to have a level head conversation about this, without trying to redirect the argument to an attack on my faith.
I agree that it’s a parent’s responsibility to teach and or raise their children. All I’m saying is that once a child becomes an adult, they make their own choices, and those choices aren’t necessarily a reflection of how well a child was raised. As such, I think it’s unfair to automatically assume that a parent was a bad parent simply because of the choices their children (or spawn, if you will 🙂 ) make.
attack your faith and I find it reprehensible that anyone would.
I do, however, think it appropriate to discuss the tenets of individuals’ faith and the impact it may or may not have on their public policy positions.
For instance, if one is a Southern Baptist and attends a church that says only a man is qualified to teach…it does beg the question how does that tenet affect or inform their attitude towards the role of women in the public square.
I am a member of the United Church of Christ. Both my church and my denomination have a stated positions opposing capital punishment. I disagree with them on this.
I don’t have any problems with discussing tenants of faith-as long as it’s done in a respectful manner. One should also recognize that a member of a particular faith isn’t the sole authority on all of the tenants of that faith, and as such may not be able to give lengthy answers on each tenant.
I don’t know much about the United Church of Christ. What can you tell me about it?
place to send you for general information on the UCC is to our web site: ucc.org
Thanks-I try to at least be informed about other churches/religions.
that the UCC describes itself as a “United and a Uniting” church. That means that congregations and individual members vary widely in terms of style of worship and beliefs, but are united in respecting others opinions regarding beliefs.
As a fried of mine says, if you visit one UCC church, you’ve visited one UCC church…
Thanks for that bit of information-that’s kind of funny. Not in a bad way, just in that so many churches (mine included) make a big deal about how they’re the same anywhere you go.
Or at least they try to be.
a bit disconcerting if you aren’t aware of these differences.
I’ve been going to my church for about 6 years now. When I first started going, I went with my Mom to one back near her home in Illinois. Waaaay different. They didn’t even use the UCC hymnal (they had a Disciples of Christ hymnal). Another UCC I have gone to uses all Contemporary music in worship. Our church is transitioning from a “traditional” to a “contemporary” style of worship. Transitioning is very slow….
Their ministers go back and forth, etc. Sort of like the Lutherans and the Episcopalians.
We also have one with the ELCA.
I wasn’t aware of the Lutherans and Episcopalians though.
I say mine, but I mean my wife’s. My theology is complicated.
UCC as a congregationalist church are diverse and reflective of their congregations in worship style. The hope is that a faith community that speaks in a language that the congregation understands will grow and deepen the individuals relationship with Christ.
There is a lot of rage in the Black community, the calls to “just get over it” make the community even angrier. I believe that trinity began to reflect that view more intesely as the relative good times of the 90’s gave way to ’00.
Trinity’s social ministry is excellent and should be lauded. I have actually watched a few of Wright’s sermons and I found him to often give excellent sermons (though some of them are spiked with shocking statements) and not deserving of the characature.
Mike Huckabee defended Wright and the nature of preaching that sometimes crosses lines.
However, when he started clowning at the press club after the pretty good Moyer’s interview, he had to go.
Dr. Michael Beckworth and I met in line at grocery store. We just started talking about God -very strange, in a three minute conversation he said to me whatever gets you to God is a good thing.
I am not religious because I find it condemning and divisive and I am sure the God I know is not that way.
Anyway, Agape’s congregation has many gay and lesbian couples, mixed marriages and a whole host of people that are previously members of other “churches”. Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, whatever. The church celebrates life and people and culture and love.
Dr. Beckworth would bring in Tibetan Monks to chant for mediation, Catholic priests, etc. We would walk away from every sermon with a different understanding of our world, our God and ourselves.
That to me is what God is all about – a church should never advocate that what God decides to join, Blacks with Whites, Men with Men, Women with Women, poor and rich, should be met with caution. I would say the opposite is true.
This morning, Vince’s column asks the right question:
Unlike most employer-employee relationships, Wadhams does not take direction from Schaffer but vice versa.
I hereby prospectively disavow anything sexist, racist or otherwise offensive or improper that is ever said or written by my young children. I have been a rather absentee father, so anything they say or do that’s embarrassing is their mother’s fault.
That goes for anything she may say or do as well. Or my pastor (to whom I’m rarely listening; I’m usually trying to keep my eyes open and leafing through the hymnbook).
Or my jerk of a campaign manager.
Those rougue volunteers who just won’t take direction.
As a matter of fact, you never met them..
Any sex you’ve ever had, and any resulting children, or THEIR racist facebook pages.
Must be that Schaffer is winning because there is no other reason for the Democrats to be harping on a stupid 19 yr old.
Schaffer is embarassed as he should be but responsible for what the 19 yr old put up on the internet. I don’t think so.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!
We’re just doing the exact same thing you guys have been doing this whole decade: making it about anything but the issues. What’s funny is that we’re right on the issues too, and that’s why, on November 5th, Bob Schaffer is going to slink back into an oil drill hole and bemoan about Washington like it’s not somewhere he wanted to go with all his heart and soul.
Frankly, I’d say his son’s joking support of slavery is an issue when Schaffer touts as a “model for U.S. immigration reform” a system of indentured servitude and sexual slavery. Voters I know have strong opinions about that.
What’s that? Is that an issue? All I know is that offshore drilling is the only way to fix the economy. We have to drill, you see. Offshore.
You forgot to add: Today.
Does Rosemary Marshall think her colleagues whose chlden have had serious run ins with the law are responsible for their behavior?
One of her best friends in the Legislature has a son who has been in and out of jail.
Will Rosemary demand a public apology from that member for creating such an environment?
Didn’t her ex-husband falsely claim to have been the victim of a racially motivated attack? Did she ever apologize for that?
Rosemary Marshall is a Legislator who always favors insurance companies over consumers. Rosemary has not one single Legislative accomplishment to her name. She has no right to attack anyone let alone someone’s son.
I believe that is a false attack, but I am willing to listen if you posted actual facts or what legislation you have a problem with.
Give me one example of her standing up for consumers over insurance companies. Just one will do.
Her attack on Bob Schaffer’s son is disgusting knowing that one of her Legislator friends has a son who has been convicted of the commission of major crimes. Why won’t she denounce the environment that caused that young man to commit major crimes. Rosemary Marshall is a hypocrite.
Sorry, CP, but I believe Danny the Red asked YOU for an example. If you can’t provide one, that’s fair – just say so and then the readers can judge for themselves how strong (or not) your statement was. But you don’t get to call out another reader simply by arguing “I’m right until you prove otherwise, it’s not my job to support my own statement.”
Is that what is meant? I can imagine after generations of slavery and murder of Black Americans that Rosemary Marshall should be upset and use her bully pulpit to tell the world just how upset she is.
Is the holocaust funny as well? Would you be upset if a Jewish member of the legislature stood up for anti-Semitic slurs on the website of a Senator’s son?
NEWS FLASH Yeah, Blacks are sensitive about slavery and smartass, punk white kids that post racist stuff. Yeah, he’s a punk. Why? I would challenge him to say those things in public – I bet he wouldn’t dare. My definition of a punk – throw out words and hide behind daddy and a website.
Can you prove this claim you’re making about Marshall’s husband?
Because if you can’t, it should be deleted as potentially slanderous.
Schaffer’s blowing this by letting it sit out there and ferment. Between the loose cannon wadhams and the kid, it’s a down arrow for him.
Udall’s flap at the capitol last week is completely buried by Schaffer’s problems, and unless Bob gets a handle on his kid AND wadhams, this could be over early.
While it’s just not like him, humbly taking responsibility for baby justin would give him cover, so long as he artfully words the “mea culpa” to distance himself from the disgusting posts of the kid.
Like a month ago, 2 months ago, 6 months ago, the best thing Udall can do is stay away from a guy that’s self destructing.
Schaffer has a huge downside going into this latest controversy. The kid does him no favors by putting racism and elitist leanings front and center. While the republican base will vote for him no matter what he’s done or what the kid’s postings reveal the Schaffer family values to be, that huge block of voters, the “independents” are no doubt adding this to the downside list of this terribly flawed candidate.
That Dick Wadhams is a Democratic operative operating uder deep cover.
Hell it worked in the 60s – why not bring back the White Power heydays when blacks, latinos and gays knew their place and did not do stupid things like run for President.
a long time after the ’60s. Republicans have exploited the race-baiting Southern Strategy created by Nixon to cleave working-class white voters, who had traditionally been Democrats as part of the Roosevelt coalition, in the industrial Midwest and across the South.
There’s a reason only Southern governors have won the presidency for Democrats since Nixon articulated the strategy — Southern states, solidly Democratic through the Johnson years, transformed entirely into Republican states, and their electoral votes have been off the table for Democrats except in the rare cases when a native son could contest his home state and a few border states (and thus win the presidency).
Bussing was a godsend for early-’70s Northern Republicans because they could foment the same race-baiting that was working so well in the South. The rise of urban crime, given an African American face by the national media, played right into this strategy. Willie Horton was a direct descendent of Nixon’s “law-and-order” campaign in 1970. Anyone who thinks Willie has been laid to rest is either blind or lying.
Whiskey Lima Juliet, You are dead on. Since Obama won Iowa, the possibility of a part African American, part caucasian president has been front and center.
In the last 7 months I’ve learned more about “white dread” than I care to know. With everything from SCOTUS deciding 2000, the ignoring of the 06aug01 PDB, the Iraq scam, Valerie Plame/Brewster Jennings, politicization of the DOJ, illegal wiretapping, the energy shortfall grift, caging and suppression in 2000, 2002, 2004 and even’06, sec’s of state doubling as reelection heads in Florida and Ohio, Coffman doing the same while running for Congress here, over 4,000 dead American GI’s, Afghanistan ignored, 4 bucks a gallon for gas, 3.19 for milk, on and on, Barak Obama is up by only 5-6 points over a wrinkled old white dude that was against tire gauges before he was for ’em.
Why? Obama isn’t 10-13 up for one reason. Sure you can use the words “exotic” or “arrogant”, the phrase “we don’t know enough about Obama”, or you can use his pastor’s rants as an excuse. But the bottom line is…….. Barak Obama is a “black guy”.
It might seem that our debt, inflation, and Communist China basicly owning our note a little more every day, among dozens of other crises caused by the incompetent crooks of the current administration. would be enough to cause folks to. look to another, better direction.
Not to some, and it looks like it’s more than just the “21%” that votes red no matter what. Looks like a larger percentage of whites than I ever imagined fear “a black guy” as president more than the spectre of continuing the idiocy and insanity of the last 8 years.
Locally the same mind set exists. Same percentage. Justin Schaffer’s no anomaly. He’s a continuation of the race baiting young college republican mindset that emerged circa 1981.
I really and truly hope these “folks” come to their senses. But, sadly, most won’t. Dan Caplis and Mike Rosen will make sure of that.
Excellent post RedGreen. And the numbers speak for themselves.