You must have missed the EDIT I made to post #59. It is Michael Steele and he says you are completely wrong. Here it is again:
Let's put this baby to bed. Here is
Michael Steele, head of the RNC, from a speech at DePaul University, posted in Huffington Post:
Michael Steele: For Decades GOP Pursued 'Southern Strategy' That Alienated Minorities
During his remarks he also acknowledged that for decades the GOP pursued “‘Southern Strategy’
Steele went on to make a candid statement about how the disconnect between Republicans and minorities is not new and has been a part of the party’s strategy for years.
So, who to believe, some random internet poster, or the RNC Chair? Pretty obvious eh?
Steele had some very valid points. None of which indicted the party as racists. As crony capitalists? Yes I would agree, but that is endemic in both parties now. Now go back to the full interview Q&A of Atwater I linked. You are applying motive where there is none. If you want to apply a motive of class warfare, then that is quite valid. And again both parties are guilty as charged for polarizing the electorate with class warfare rhetoric. This election cycle class warfare is a back burner issue as both the left and right have anti-establishment movements. Clearly seen in the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. People are voting against something this Presidential election cycle, and not 'for' something. Evidence? Look at how much support third parties are getting this election cycle. If you add Gary Johnson et. al. third party candidates, they are polling somewhere between 13-18% depending on the poll. We have not seen such support for third parties since Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996.
There is something more at work here than what you tout as 'racism.' People are fed up with government which has been too intrusive in their personal lives, in their wallet and can't seem to keep any of their promises to fix things government should fix (roads, bridges and getting out of endless wars). Not to mention the declining workforce in the US. People 10 years ago who held full time jobs of 40 hours or more are either completely out of the workforce, or are trying to make ends meet working several part-time jobs at a lower skill level and salary. That is what has American voters of all races ticked off. That is why on the left and independent side Bernie Sanders was popular and why Trump on the right and independent side is popular. In the US people vote their pocketbooks in many Presidential elections. This one will be no different.
redleghunter, at least you've learned something, so that's a good thing. Now we can have a discussion about racism and the Origin of the Religious Right based on facts, which is also a good thing. As well, you don't need to ask why Trump is part of the conversation, you know why.
I am sorry to note you presented no facts but propaganda. You took quotes out of context and fabricated your own narrative. To boot, your comments have been monolithic in nature ignoring the available compendium of information available. Atwater explains the dynamic nature in the Q&A I linked.
The "Religious Right" is pejorative term demagogues use to demonize particular groups. I hope you realize that. There is no 'religousright.org' for us to go look at a statement of purpose and beliefs. The term was created by demagogues. Just as 'fundamentalist' is now used to demonize particular groups. Both are quite bigoted terms.
I know why Trump is part of the conversation. He as well as Hillary suffer from verbal dysentery. Here are the facts on voters with racist intent:
-Racists will vote for Trump
-Racists will vote for Clinton
-Racists will vote third party
By your reasoning all three of the above are appealing to racists because they have support from that group. By your reasoning if a nun from the Little Sisters of the Poor votes for Trump because he advocates appointing justices who are pro-life in outlook, then she must be a racist.
Eye meet beam.