If the GOP had an email saying not to wire black homosexual women he would be losing his ***right now.
No, the difference is the GOP isn't dumb enough to say that in an e-mail because they already know it anyway.
.../sarcasm? Yes/no?
That one might work both ways I think.
Produce some form of evidence, otherwise it's just speculation.
We've already provided evidence the DNC has racist and bigots inside it's central staff.
Quote:
Seven questions bubble up to the surface as I ponder this:
1 Why is Madeleine Leader still employed by the DNC? I can answer that one: her email accurately reflects the culture of the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic Party. If she wasn’t completely confident that such an open expression of prejudice and discrimination would be acceptable, she would not have dared to put such a sentiment into print.
Even so, if the Democrats had an ounce of sense or even aspired to decency, they would have fired Leader with expressions of horror, and proclaimed her a rogue employee. However, the party apparently believes that its base and perhaps even the typical Democrat will read Leader’s message and say, “What’s the matter with that?”
2. Do progressives and Democrats really think there is a difference between saying “no white, straight males need apply” and “no black lesbians need apply”? I can answer that one too. Of course they do. They really think the latter is despicable, racist, sexist homophobia, and the former is just virtuous diversity at work.
They really do. No, seriously. They do.
3. Why was this story first reported at the Daily Wire, a conservative website, then at several other conservative websites, then on Fox News, and finally at The Hill, a political website that tilts left, but not yet at any mainstream media sources?
See #1 above. One reason the DNC thinks it can pretty much duck this embarrassment is that it knows the mainstream media will cover the party’s tracks by not reporting the story. “Democracy dies in darkness,” pompously proclaims the Washington Post on its front page. Right. The Post doesn’t want independents or anyone who isn’t in lock-step with whatever the Democratic Party does or says to know how low the party of Jefferson, Jackson and FDR has sunk, and how much it has abandoned democratic ideals. It has been three days since Leader’s email became public. The Post has kept the story in darkness. So has the New York Times, apparently because blatant bigotry at the DNC isn’t news fit to print.
4. Why do Democrats want Donald Trump to be re-elected? They must want this; I can’t figure out any other explanation for the party’s behavior since November. It should have looked at itself in the mirror, and realized that it has become so estranged from basic American values that the public was willing to elect Donald Trump—Donald Trump!— rather than submit to the divisive tribalism seeded and cultivated by the Obama Administration. Instead of pulling itself away from the abyss, however, it is hurling itself over and in.
5. Does everybody find the DNC’s response as pathetic as I do? The Hill got this regarding the email from DNC spokesman Michael Tyle:
“The email in question was not authorized by the DNC nor was it authorized by senior leadership. All hiring decisions at the DNC are made consistent with the DNC’s commitment to equal employment opportunity and hiring an inclusive and talented staff that reflects the coalition of the Democratic Party, because our diversity is our greatest strength.”
Sure. Except that if the email has not been made public, Leader would have hired a gay, non-white male or female or some other anointed combination, and no one would have known or cared, because she was reflecting the culture and attitudes she works in. (Of course it’s not “authorized”—it was an internal email. Lame.)
This wasn't some hidden discussion or fringe element, this was a primary DNC staff manager putting out their hiring preferences over an email visible to the entire staff as though it's a normally accepted practice. Liberal news sources are being super quiet about it, pretending it didn't happen.