Republican Reformation - The Minority-Majority Approaches

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If that is the case you need to state that up front, otherwise, when you push a minority candidate people will assume it is for the color/tokenism rather than that being part of a whole basket of advantages to a particular candidate.

In my preference there wouldn't be this political correctness and party rectal examine with a fine tooth comb looking for every blemish. You are going to have crazies in both party and to hold a whole party responsbile for that or to use guilt by a association is a major detriment to our political process, whether iti s reverend Wright or Joe Arpaio.

Griffin start out good but then he veared off. There is a significnat disadvantage in that the Republcians face a very hostile media and in the Hispanic community that is even worse. I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality. We have to fight back against these perceptions, on all fronts or everything we do will fail.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality.

You may find it to be "nonsense", but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

The problem with that is simple, it is presumptuous of peoples motives in an insulting fashion. When you start shutting down legimate debate because you wrongly misindentify their motives, you are silencing people in the political process.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality.

You may find it to be "nonsense", but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

The problem with that is simple, it is presumptuous of peoples motives in an insulting fashion. When you start shutting down legimate debate because you wrongly misindentify their motives, you are silencing people in the political process.

The reality is that there's no such thing as neutral, impartial language in which ideas can be conveyed transparently and received by all audiences in the same way. Especially not in political discourse. So it's always a question of who you're appealing to. Republicans have chosen to use language that appeals to some kinds of voters more than to others. Democrats have done the same. If Republicans want to win over groups that they've had trouble with, they might need to re-frame their ideas for those groups.

Nothing strange about that. The only thing that would be strange would be if Republicans were so attached to the language in which their ideas are framed, that they'd rather re-litigate the question of whether or not that language is racist/sexist/whatever than adapt the language in order to win elections.

I have no problem with shifting language. My problem is when legitimate and even better positions and ideas have to be scuttled because of a false narrative. Where the language needs to be changed, change it. But where a position needs to be defended against a false narrative, that should occur as well, rather than abandoning it.