@ Maximus: I picked on the RNC because: (1) the original post was about the RNC convention; (2) posters appeared shocked when someone pointed out that the demographic of the GOP was mostly white, conservative, and religious, which is a known fact (and there is nothing inherently wrong or sinister about this fact unless it is used for sinister reasons); (3) I personally believe that the RNC has been aggressive this year in efforts to suppress the minority vote through voter ID laws–and not because of a sincere fear of voter fraud–which is sinister in my opinion for the reason stated in point number 2; and (4) yet the RNC decided this year to place a special emphasis on “diversity” at the convention, which is particularly hypocritical in light of point number 3.
If the line-up of speakers at the RNC convention was randomly more diverse than its base–and race and gender didn’t factor into the line-up decision at all–then I apologize for my wrong assumption. I don’t think my assumption is wrong, however, just as I am also pretty sure the DNC will factor race and gender into its speaker decisions at its convention.
And yes, I believe that both parties are guilty of using social science and Madison Avenue techniques to categorize, divide, and target all of us into groups based on, among other categories, race and gender, for the sole purpose of winning elections. I don’t think this is a secret either and I’m not a fan of it.
Also, if you show me an instance of the DNC employing strategies for the express purpose of voter suppression by targeting any demographic groups, or supporting policies that promote voter fraud for that matter, I’ll also condemn those actions as well. Target marketing is one thing, but voter fraud and intentional voter suppression is another.
@ Beans: What “affirmative action requirements” do I have? I’m not aware of any, nor am I a fan of affirmative action. For the record, the candidate I most closely identified with this year is Ron Paul, although I don’t agree with all of his positions.
Also, you stated that, “Yes they had women and minority speakers, to show ignorant racists like yourself, that not everyone is a drone and some people can actually think.” I take it this means you agree that they used race and gender as a factor in considering who spoke at the convention. I would agree with you on this point. But I disagree that pointing this out makes me a racist.
You also said that, “They had them speak because they were bright, talented, young conservatives that are looking to make a difference,” and I don’t necessarily disagree with this statement either, but I still think they used race and gender as one factor in making the decisions as to who spoke at the convention. Again, if I am wrong on this assumption I apologize, but you appear to agree that race and gender was at least a factor in the selection criteria.
@ maximus, no, I don’t think the fact that one demographic group statistically favors one candidate over another is inherently “racist,” whether this occurs on one side of the aisle or the other. I also don’t know whether the choice of the DNC chair was “hispandering,” (your term) although it would not surprise me in the least if either party selected a candidate or party member for a position using race or gender as a key criteria if they thought it would win them votes in a key demographic. Again, I am not a fan of this but I believe that is exactly what happens in both parties.
