Republican Party continues its outreach efforts

The Republican Party, Sam Tanenhaus writes, “is and will continue to be the party of white people.” But Republicans aren’t sitting back and accepting this fate. They’re boldly continuing their winsome outreach efforts to attract a more diverse array of voters — women, blacks, Latinos, LGBT citizens, college students, disaster victims and more.

Here is an incomplete collection of such efforts from recent weeks.

• Michael Walsh of The National Review explains Republican efforts to attract more women voters.

• The Republican Party continues its outreach efforts to win over Latino voters.

• Republican mega-donor Foster Friess explains his plan to win over “urban” voters.

• Republican National Committee rolls out ‘REDMAP,’ an effort to appeal to voters who dislike having their votes counted.

• Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., continues GOP outreach efforts to Latino voters.

• Former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party Todd Kincannon begins Twitter outreach to win over African-American voters.

• Former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party Todd Kincannon also begins outreach effort to win over voters who might like a see a picture of his penis.

• New Mexico Republicans court the votes of crime victims.

• Arizona Republicans seek to make their party seem cool and not-at-all creepy and authoritarian to young people.

• Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is reaching out to voters with sick or dying family members.

• Wisconsin state Sen. Glenn Grothman extends Republican Party outreach to African-American voters.

• Bill Clayton is only a humble alderman in Rapid City, S.D., but he too wants black voters to remember his words when they think of the Republican Party.

• House Republicans continue efforts to charm women voters.

• House Republicans strategize outreach to win over voters down the shore.

• 22 male Republican senators make overture to win over women voters.


Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

Of, by, for
Sunday favorites
Shenanigans: Evangelical identity and the evangelical brand (part 2)
Shenanigans: Evangelical identity and the evangelical brand (part 1)
  • Coleslaw

    But Governor Jindal wants to make it possible for people to afford their own hospice care by repealing their state income tax! Of course, he’s going to make up the lost funds by increasing state sales tax, but that’s not going to have a negative effect on anyone except poor people.

  • FangsFirst

    Sadly, I think my current state (NC) started this ball rolling–at least, they went public first, intentionally or not–and now I’ve seen a slew (including LA) following suit. Wheeee….

  • Invisible Neutrino

    • Former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party Todd Kincannon also begins outreach effort to win over voters who might like a see a picture of his penis.

    Honestly, it looks nice.

    But really, by now politicians should know that the “power is an aphrosidiac” thing also means people who they incautiously get personal with often have evidence of their doings.

  • Marc Mielke

    On first read, I totally missed the ‘i’ in ‘doings’. 

  • AnonymousSam

    We do indeed have evidence of his dongs now. Or at least one of them. Whatever else he keeps in the drawer beneath his bed… ah, no, if I’m writing erotica, I’m doing it with my own characters. Much less horrifically scarring to imagine. ^_^;

  • Jeff Weskamp

    (jaw hits desk)

    (silence for 30 seconds)

    Good grief, are the Republicans deliberately trying to destroy themselves politically!?  Or are they secretly competing for the title of “Biggest Asshole in America?”

    It’s no longer a matter of simply disagreeing with the Republican Party’s policies.  It’s a matter of having absolutely no respect for them in any way.

  • hidden_urchin

    “Biggest Asshole” sounds like a great new reality series.

    Oh, wait, it already exists. New seasons are aired every four years.

  • Matri

    Four years?

    They’re making new episodes every day now!

  • hidden_urchin

    They’re making new episodes every day now!

    Aired nightly on Fox?

  • AnonymousSam

    Lately, the GOP’s strategy appears to be “Well, that didn’t work, so let’s try doing a whole lot more of it.” They just keep doubling down on conservatism, demonstrating that American conservatism is firmly rooted in classism, racism and sexism.

    Taking dibs that at this rate, the Republican 2016 candidate’s platform will simply be “EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO DIE SO THAT WE MAY LIVE.”

  • LL

    Eh, there’s no competition there, I think they’ve got the Biggest Assholes in America title locked up for the foreseeable future. 

    We’ll all get raptured before anyone comes close to being as monumentally assholish as the Republicans. 

  • Baby_Raptor

    It’s a matter of seeing them as an active threat, at least for non-white non-fundies. 

  • Carstonio

    I suspect a huge percentage of them are in denial of their demographic destiny. Having an educated black man in the White House probably feels like a bad dream to them. Fred codified the the phenomenon last month.

    There were plenty of things I detested about the Bush years – the Iraq war, the demagoguery about stem cells and Terri Schiavo, the use of Regent University and Patrick Henry College as employment agencies  – but at least there was still a fair amount of interest of governance and and in winning elections. The class of 2010 for Congress, especially in the House, often seems like the Koch brothers simply scoured the letter columns of small-town newspapers and recruited the crankiest writers. With the House of Representatives class of 2010 in particular, it seems like the Koch brothers scoured the letters columns of small-town newspapers and recruited the crankiest of the letter-writers, and . Whatever the GOP might have stood for in past decades, now it’s a party of protest and not of policy, just sour old white men yelling at everyone to get off their metaphorical lawns.

    Here’s a theory that Obama is now using himself as the straw man extremist. If so, it’s astounding to see ostensibly grown men acting like 5-year-olds, even while the tactic itself seems clever.

    Republican members of Congress have shown a willingness, even an
    eagerness, to vote against measures that they themselves have sponsored in the past — if Obama is now proposing them.

    So if the president really wants immigration reform to pass, one of the most helpful things he could do is put out his own plan as a decoy, to draw Republican fire, while the Senate works toward bipartisan consensus. Which looks suspiciously like what just happened.

  • fraser

    I’ll throw David Brooks’ recent column into the mix. He argues that Obama is indeed an extremist because he’s proposing policies that look sensible (Hurricane Sandy relief, moderate gun control) but are really ruthlessly partisan! They’re going to split the Republicans because not all Republicans agree with them–the only truly bipartisan approach is to adopt policies that Repubs will universally agree with!
    I realize criticizing Brooks is like shooting fish in a barrel but it seems the media belief in bipartisanship as an end in itself is growing more extreme along with everything else.

  • Carstonio

    If David Brooks were defining the Overton window, it would shoot off the house and into the woods like it was fired from a catapult. Imagine Brooks responding to the counter-suggestion that Republicans should only propose policies that Democrats universally agree with.

  • CharityB

    This sort of nonsense is David Brooks’s bread and butter. He wrote an article a few weeks ago about how it was Al Gore’s fault that Republicans tend to oppose efforts to deal with climate change, even the ones that they themselves helped develop just 10 years ago. His central argument was that, because Gore became a liberal icon, this repulsed conservatives so much that they had to fight against everything he stood for. Brooks practically concedes that Gore is right and that Republicans know it, but argues that it’s still somehow Gore’s fault that Republicans are throwing a lethal temper tantrum due to their dislike of him.

    It kind of reminds me of Newt Gingrich’s blamed Barack Obama for the failure of his (Gingrich’s) attempts to smear Mitt Romney during the last GOP primary. For the part of personal responsibility, these guys hate taking the blame for anything they say or do.

  • Carstonio

     That’s what I mean by immaturity. Avoiding blame is part of it. My point is about the obviously personal issues they have with both Gore and Obama. Most likely they view both as pretenders to authority, as if the two are tyrannical older siblings and folks like Brooks are resentful younger ones.

  • fraser

     No “most likely.” I think for a large chunk of the Republican base, they believe getting a president they don’t support is conclusive proof that government has been taken over by evil. I know plenty of Repubs who swore they could never vote for a disgusting draft avoider like Clinton, but they had no problem with W or Romney avoiding the draft.

  • Carstonio

    Yes, there are some absolutist notions of political warfare involved. My point is about the reasons why Gore and Obama (both Barack and Michelle) push the base’s buttons. They simply don’t want to be told what to do by specific people, meaning blacks and women and “pointy-headed intellectuals.” To hear them talk during the First Lady’s push for healthy eating, one would have thought the Trans Fat Gestapo was arresting folks with potato chips in their cabinets.

  • fraser

     Brooks wrote a lengthy column about how Our Leaders failed to understand what was going on in Iraq. Somehow he neglected to offer the personal example of his columns explaining our occupation was brilliant and there was zero risk of internecine religious conflict in Iraq.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Someone really needs to explain to Republicans that ‘Bipartisanship’ doesn’t mean ‘being twice as partisan’.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Here’s a theory that Obama is now using himself as the straw man extremist. If so, it’s astounding to see ostensibly grown men acting like 5-year-olds, even while the tactic itself seems clever.

    I’ve said it before – if the Democrats want to win the next elections, all they have to do is get Obama to declare the last week in October National Not Setting Yourself On Fire Week.  The teapublicans can’t vote if they’re all in the burn ward….

  • Matri

    Is it wrong for me to laugh AND like this post?

  • fredgiblet

    So nice to see people being industrious these days.  Hard at work doing their best to…I don’t know exactly what they’re trying to do to be honest but they’re hard at work at it.

    Who wants to take bets on how much longer the Republicans will be solvent as a party?

  • Invisible Neutrino

    Judging from how long they’ve been running on the fumes of patronizingly condescending to every voter bloc except white people, it could be another decade at least. :O

  • Lliira

    Even Scientology’s still solvent. And Republicans don’t require you believe in any extraordinarily poorly imagined tales of space aliens. (They require you to believe in other extraordinarily poorly imagined things, but not thetans and Xenu.) Telling rich people they deserve to be rich and powerful and that poor people deserve to be poor and powerless is always a great strategy for making lots of money and for staying in power. It was the basis of most government for most of human history.

  • fredgiblet

    But Scientology doesn’t need to fool 50+% of the population to have relevance.  If the GOP drops to 40% or lower in their home turf then they’ll be in crisis.

  • mcc
  • Ross

    Anyone else always feel that Foster Freiss should be introduced as “Conservative Mega-Donor  and former Batman Villain Foster Freiss”?

  • Marc Mielke

    Funny, but Victor was a man of science motivated by love. He deserves better. 

  • everstar

     Are you sure he’s a former Batman villain?

  • fraser

    The first tweet about Trayvon Martin … I need to wash my eyes out now. Preferably with bleach.

  • chris the cynic

    I think they’re gerrymandered enough that they really don’t need to give a damn who they piss off in the near future.  They’ll keep the House.  In the Senate, absent actual filibuster reform* nothing will get done there either because the Democrats will not make it to 60 seats.

    For the foreseeable future they’re pretty well set.  And in terms of fundraising being theoretically out of power is probably to their benefit.  Does anyone think they could have raised as much as they did last election cycle if McCain were in the White House?

    As long as they can stop a Democratic president’s legislative agenda, they’re pretty well set.  The president takes all the blame, they get to hold the country hostage over and over again.  Not a bad negotiating position.-*Fun fact: When the US Senate started it was, under those rules, impossible to filibuster.  The rules were changed not because people wanted the filibuster, but because they thought no one would ever try, rule or no rule, so it was pointless wasted space in the rulebook.

  • mcc

    The worst case scenario for the U.S. is that (as it often does) the nation will follow the model set by California. California has some legislative quirks that mean that an obstructionist minority of at least 33.4% can prevent anything budgetary from occurring in the state. This lead to the conservative party radicalizing more and more through a weird sort of shifted hotelling effect— because they didn’t really have much of a benefit to having more than 34% of the seats, they eventually converged on 34%, focusing on getting the most radical, solid, safely-held-seat, ideologically pure 34% they could muster. So now the Democrats have a permanent majority, but the Republicans have permanent control of the agenda, because as long as their agenda is “no” they can force that with their solid minority. The dems meanwhile can pass essentially whatever social legislation they want because that can be done with their mere 51%, but the government is permanently broke and dysfunctional and can’t do anything very interesting.

    One can easily see this potentially happening on a national scale, instead of aiming for 34% aiming for the 41% you need to shut down the Senate.

  • P J Evans

     On the other hand, California finally got tired of the sandbox lot holding up the works, and changed the rules a little. Things are actually moving again.

  • Lori


    So now the Democrats have a permanent majority, but the Republicans have
    permanent control of the agenda, because as long as their agenda is
    “no” they can force that with their solid minority.  

    Not since last November, they don’t. Enough voters finally got sick of the GOP’s shit and the Dems now have a large enough majority that it really doesn’t matter how the Republicans vote.

  • AnonymousSam

    In my experience, when people say they’d like to remove rules even though no one would ever do something like that… they plan on doing it. A lot. As much as they can possibly get away with. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have the slightest interest in making it legal.

    Also see: The recent attempts to remove child labor law restrictions, minimum wage, etc.

  • chris the cynic

    Normally I would be inclined to agree, but I don’t think the first filibuster happened until well after the rule that prevented them was removed.

  • AnonymousSam

    Hmm, you’re right. Rule removed 1805, first filibuster 1841.

  • fraser

     I think sometimes they’re just stupid. I’m inclined to believe Greenspan when he said that it never occurred to him that deregulating the financial industry wouldn’t bring on utopia.

  • fraser

    I know some Republicans want to move left, if only because in the long run it’s more in their interest.
    However they’ve got a core of voters and politicians who are absolutely convinced that any deviation from current positions would be the Second Fall of man. And according to one conservative, the companies that send out direct mail to party members need a certain amount of crazy to stay profitable (“Obama is going to crash the economy! Buy gold and guns now!”).
    I also suspect that in the short-term it may actually be good strategy for people in reasonably safe districts. For example, all the Repubs who say they want to stop college kids voting because they’re too liberal, and saying it openly–I suspect there are chunks of the old WASP base that hear that and think “These guys have my back!”

  • SisterCoyote

    I’m… a little boggled by Jindal’s plan, there. Did he just institute something more devastating than the mythical Death Panels? Like… not under Obama, where sinister panels review your ill or dying relatives to see if they’re worth saving. More like summarily deciding that anyone who needs hospice care is no longer worth helping.


  • BringTheNoise

     But that’s DIFFERENT. I mean, for starters, he’s a REPUBLICAN. And anyway, he’s only shutting down the State hospices, so the Glorious Majesty of The Market can build new more efficient (at making money for their shareholders) ones.  And we all know that The Market can never do wrong, for it is The Market.

    Obama, on the other hand, was (not in reality, but when did that last impinge on these ridiculous right wing fantasies?) going to let THE GUB’MINT decide, and they can never do anything right, because GUB’MINT!

  • LL

    No, no, no, just the poors. You know, the 47-percenters. 

  • Joshua

    I like the loyalty oath guy’s reasoning:

    “It is my hope that if Arizona students are given the opportunity to also take a simple, Constitutional oath, that this will inspire them to learn more about our Constitutional form of government and the rich history of our nation and founding.”

    He doesn’t even consider the option of simply requiring that children learn about the Constitution and the history/founding of the US in school. 

    The abortion one is so obviously a crock. If she was really serious, she would require all doctors to retain the products of conception for any termination of a pregnancy, not just an abortion. After all, not every rape victim reports her attack immediately and if the products aren’t retained and kept safe then they have little evidentiary value. If a woman in the condition described in the bill were to have a miscarriage and give the fetus a Christian burial, wouldn’t she also deserve to be charged for tampering with evidence?

    (Incidentally, does anyone find that entire description to be creepy? It’s like she doesn’t really view fetuses as children.)

  • Lori

    One I’m surprised Fred missed—North Carolina Republicans are still as classy as ever. The state Department of Transportation will now be issuing “special” driver’s licenses to folks who are US citizens, including the words “No Lawful Status” right there on the license, under the nice pink bar.

    What could go wrong with that?

  • Invisible Neutrino

    You know, I seem to dimly recall a country which declared people noncitizens and began issuing “special” paperwork to them.

    Oh yes. South Africa under apartheid.

  • P J Evans

     Do they have any foreign-owned businesses located in their state? Because I see lawsuits in their future, if so.

  • Baby_Raptor

    That New Mexico abortion law made me see red. 

    Has the idiot never heard of a rape kit? Vastly more simple, and it doesn’t reduce women to incubators. 

    Or, hell. If you can’t handle that, save a piece of the tissue after the abortion. DNA test that! 

    And how does forcing a woman to birth a child she doesn’t want that was the product of a traumatic experience “protect” women? 

    Also, I note the lack of protections for women who do decide to go to term, but end up having to abort due to health or fatal defects. Are they gonna get jailed, too? And the doctors/nurses who helped them? And what about miscarriages? How will those be handled?

    I just…No words. Just rage. 

  • fraser

     Nor do I hear any suggestions that the state should actually pay to cover the costs of forcing someone to have a baby. I’m sure if that’s raised we’ll hear a lot more talk about “legitimate rape” and how some sluts just don’t want to bear the financial consequences of their sluttiness, etc.

  • AnonymousSam

    FFS, TRIGGER WARNING that New Mexico page. ._.

    MASSIVE TW: Rape, incest, ungodly twisted moral and sexual beliefs about children

  • Lliira

    Which one is “the New Mexico page”? Oh, never mind, I never click anything Fred links any more anyway except the Church signs. Because, for all his vigorous defense of trigger warnings, and his calling people who don’t like them jerks, he both links things without warnings all the time and links things he says will be cheerful and/or by “smart people” that turn out to ruin my week entirely all the time. 

  • Invisible Neutrino

    • New Mexico Republicans court the votes of crime victims.

    Actually it is mostly due to the way Republicans casually dismiss the concerns of rape victims that gives rise to the TW. Incest is incidental to the discussion – the primary focus is on an asinine law that would have put women on trial for getting abortions, even rape victims.

  • AnonymousSam

    “New Mexico Republicans court the votes of crime victims.”

    I seriously wasn’t prepared for what I read (it starts out bad, but then gets much much worse) and it destroyed my creativity for the rest of the night.

  • Lliira

    That is really awful, and I am sorry you were put in this position.

    My general mindset has improved since I’ve stopped following stuff Fred links. I used to be smacked upside the head by horrors all the time, and also have to twist myself into knots to justify some extraordinarily nasty stuff that he claimed would be awesome stuff.

    Then I realized that, just because I generally like Fred, that does not mean I have to keep giving him the benefit of the doubt over and over and over again when it hurts me. Because I’m not Christian any more, thank cats. Now I get to say, “I like what Fred writes but I don’t trust his judgment of what other people write enough to keep doing this to myself, and I am allowed to both judge and refuse to give seventy-second chances.”

  • AnonymousSam

    I’m just thankful that the few trauma-based triggers I have are not things that translate well to the Internet. What I do have are things that can whip me into an instantaneous state of rage. This was one of them. Somewhere out there, there is a man who wrote a book and he is utterly complacent in his state of complete and utter moral filth.

    That’s all I need to know. That’s all I want to know. Because if I found out he was still alive and lived nearby, I hate to think what I might do.

  • Matri

    Because if I found out he was still alive and lived nearby, I hate to think what I might do.

    I’ll help…

    *looks about furtively*

  • StillAPonyFan

    So, about the Kincanon guy’s…um, comment?….does anyone else think its fake? don’t misunderstand me, this isn’t a political thing where i assume teh wicked DEMON-crats (trademark) are ruining an honest god-fearin’ republican man. It just seems like that almost too much of an asshole thing, like making a comment about someone’s grandmother being a hooker after she dies. 

    Am I just be too optimistic here?

  • AnonymousSam

    No, it’s not fake. Because it’s still there.

    And his more recent posts are just as bad.

  • Ima Pseudonym

    Checked his twitter.  Calling him a neanderthal is an insult to neanderthals.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    One thing that would help, IMV, is if the quantity of links were perhaps reduced in favor of being able to peruse them and then give warnings as necessary. But that’s Fred’s deal, not mine.

  • Jamoche

    Here’s a politician behaving badly in a way that really is just silly:

    After a bit of political mockery involving his head photoshopped onto a porn star’s body:

    …he wants to make lewd, coarse, filthy Photoshopping illegal and punishable with a fine of $1,000.

    He fulminated to Fox News: “No one has a right to make fun of anyone. It’s not a First Amendment right.”

  • Invisible Neutrino

    This kind of thin-skinned response to parody is characteristic of authoritarian thinking and is reminiscent of dictators throwing strops over criticism of any kind.

  • Carstonio

    Growing up, I wanted to hit classmates who made fun of me or laughed at me. A few times I actually lashed out when they did this, and almost always they seemed shocked at my reaction. But public officials are fair game for satire  because they choose to serve in those roles, and their positions give them automatic power advantages over their satirists.

  • Invisible Neutrino

    Yeah, it’s why I specifically made reference to people with power, etc.

  • AnonymousSam

    And I’m sure Fox News nodded and made agreeing noises, and later that same broadcast, mocked elderly women some more…

  • hidden_urchin

    He really doesn’t know how the internet works, does he? Anyone want to take bets on how long it is before he gets ‘shopped into some gay porn or the like?

  • Tricksterson

    Can I put my money on “Already been done”?

  • Marc Mielke

    Gay porn? How…mundane. I’m expecting 4Chan and the like to get a bit more creative than that. Maybe something involving one cup, a goat, or both.

  • Turcano

    Um, isn’t he aware that there has already been a rather highly-publicized Supreme Court decision on that very issue?  I think they made a movie about it and everything.

  • MaryKaye

    Among Bonewits’ 11 signs of a dangerous cult I have found “does not tolerate humor directed at the leaders” to be one of the most useful and telling. It’s easy to identify, hard for them to hide, and you really do not want to be involved with any organization with this trait.

    My very dignified professorial mother felt similarly; one of her contributions was to volunteer for the yearly “throw a baseball and dunk a professor” attraction at the college fair.  I wish I had a picture of her doing it.