David Duke as GOP Nominee: Will Anyone Notice the Difference?

David Duke is thinking of entering the race for the Republican nominee for President.  Sure, Huffpo noticed, and The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, and The Forward.  No word from the core of the mainstream media, and no word yet on how Mr. Duke will be received by either the Republican establishment, the voters, or the Tea Partiers.  Let me take a deep breath and speculate.

The Republican establishment will not like David Duke entering the race.  He’ll taint their brand.  Sure, the Republicans don’t get vote from African Americans, and they don’t get huge votes from Jews, but even then the GOP doesn’t want to be seen in the company of the Grand Poobah of Hate.  Why?  I’m sure David Duke agreed when Ronald Reagan complained about welfare queens on the campaign trail 35 years ago, and when George H. W. Bush campaigned using Willie Horton 12 years later.  Few Republicans complained about the racism of the Tea Partiers (that Tea Party racism is all the rage, you know), and many joined the birthers, whose raison d’etre seems to be racism.  Let’s not forget the racist core of the nativist anti-immigration movements the Republicans support, either, or the GOP-led return of Jim Crow laws.  How doesn’t David Duke fit into the Republican ethos?  Sure, the GOP may be desperately trying to keep the brand clean of the stain of racism, but one doesn’t do that merely by condemning a David Duke.

Hey, the KKK has been working on its brand, too.  As noted in the HuffPo article, they might protest Westboro Baptist, but they still agree that gay citizens don’t deserve any rights in our country.  More worrying is the video David Duke is using to promote his candidacy. . . is there any difference between this platform and that of most any other GOP candidate?  From bestofneworleans.com:

His platform: welfare and campaign finance reforms, not letting “Israel or any nation dictate our foreign policy,” re-deploying troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, stopping all immigration, stopping international banks, abolishing the Federal Reserve and affirmative action, and promoting “American values” in the media.

I’m not trying to be alarmist here.  However, it is clear to me that the “rights” rhetoric of David Duke, and how he complains of African Americans having “special rights,” is echoed in the anti-gay campaigns of the National Organization for Marriage (these folks seem in tune with Michele Bachmann’s husband).  And, no, I am not fooled by the few crossover votes in New York by Republicans that that party is growing soft on gay rights issues.  No, I don’t at all expect rich Republicans to advocate for gay citizens acraoss the country as they did in New York.

Sure, Gambit notes that there are impediments to David Duke actually being eligible to run for President, but the issue here isn’t whether Duke can run or not.  For him it is how he distinguishes himself from the rest of the Republicans.  His platform, as extremist as we progressives see it to be, is just not out of the GOP mainstream.  It’s not going to be easy for David Duke to out-crazy this crowd, after all.  Perhaps Duke’s best bet is to pretend he’s Mitt Romney.

 

Share:

Related Articles

39 thoughts on “David Duke as GOP Nominee: Will Anyone Notice the Difference?

  1. I think Duke’s anti-Israel views distinguish him from other Republicans. Most of the evangelical wing-nuts who vote Republican want to keep Israel strong and majority Jewish, because they believe those conditions are necessary to bring about the second coming of Jeebus.

    1. You are correct, Jill. That might be the only way to tell Duke from other Republicans. Still, he probably fits into a Tea Party ethos with that stance.

      1. “That might be the only way to tell Duke from other Republicans.”

        That is like saying the only way to tell Vladimir Lenin from all the Lefties in America is that he was a Russian.

        1. Better to remain silent and only be thought the fool, Wingnut, than to “speak” and remove all doubt.

        2. There were many differences between Lenin and liberals in America. Leninism actually has more in common with the corporate connections right now than what is going on with the left.

          Example: Leninism believed that we had to have leaders who had to be comfortable at all times, because the common man was too stupid to understand or even use the wealth properly. it lacked the important issue of having a choice in what you could do, even if it tried to sell themselves like that.

          I’m not sure if there is a suitable comparison to the left in America to tell you the truth. I can find a lot for the right, but the left in America are terribly disorganized with conflicting beliefs and are never in lockstep with each other compared to conservatives. They don’t willingly jump into action by the orders of their own party. You can even tell by the votes in the House, Senate, or anywhere – not to mention the conflicting opinions on this blog. This is why it was considered a miracle in Wisconsin that they stood together.

          Either way David Duke is an extreme conservative whether people like it or not. And unfortunately, if the media doesn’t mention his history at all, he can actually get into power.

          1. Hey, T. what’s up?

            Anyway, the *whoosh* you heard as you posted your comment was the sound of the very erudite points you were making going right over Wingnut’s head.

            And, given his initial comments, he’s obviously too deep in the extremist Kool-Aid to care.

            Notalib redux.

          2. the left in America are terribly disorganized with conflicting beliefs and are never in lockstep with each other compared to conservatives.

            That’s actually a characteristic of left-leaning parties and ideologies throughout the world. Don’t have the time or wherewithal to dig for them, but I’ve read a couple of fascinating studies on this – all having to do with wiring of the brain.

        3. I agree the point is invalid, David Duke is not like all Republicans. Nor is he like the majority.
          This comparison does nothing to shed light on the current ideological shifts within the Republican party. My own view is that the David Duke elements of our society have remained relatively constant. They do not seem resonant with the Bachmann aficionados of today etc.
          As an often-but-not-always Liberal-leaning person myself I may see Bachmann as expressing “extreme” views. but I do not see them as Klan material.

          p.s. I am a worthless bit of pus, disgracing this otherwise Einsteinian blog. I am not fit to lick the boots of the people who write here.
          I sicken myself.
          There, I just saved some “civil” person the bother by jacking a few insults up my own ass.

  2. “That might be the only way to tell Duke from other Republicans.”

    That is like saying the only way to tell Vladimir Lenin from all the Lefties in America is that he was a Russian.

    1. Better to remain “silent” and only be thought the fool, Wingnut, than to “speak” and remove all doubt.

      1. I would have a reply to you Zuma, but I can’t seem to see what I am typing. This really is a blue blog.

        1. Your computer knows that you are a conservative and is punishing you. Go out in the street and yell “I love unions, especially between gay men” real loud and then come back to the computer. It’ll be fixed then.

        2. @ Wingnut [thanks for saving me the trouble of so labeling you]

          “. . .I can’t seem to see what I am typing.”

          Well, that explains a lot.

          “This really is a blue blog.”

          Dude, the “color” of this blog isn’t your problem. You just came in here with the wrong attitude.

          Right out of the chute, you want to compare intelligent, articulate people like us to Lenin? That’s bullshit. Either keep it civil and reasonable or take your sorry ass back to whatever wingnut echo chamber you came from.

          Your posts here would make the extremists at Patriot Action Network proud if you posted them there. Here they just constitute, and are viewed as, big steaming piles of wingnut dung.

          By the way, Wingnut, if you take those extremist blinders off, you’d be able to see more clearly.

          1. “@ Wingnut [thanks for saving me the trouble of so labeling you]”

            Zuma, you already labeled me as a wingnut. I used to use the name LookingAtLoons.

            “you want to compare intelligent, articulate people like us to Lenin?”

            Well, think about it. You compared a guy like Duke to ALL Republicans.

              1. Wingnut, my comment seems out of order on this nested mess here. I was not replying to you. God knows where this comment will go, but wherever, we can be sure it will be very very Electric Blue.

              2. It’s cool, Wingnut. Welcome back, by the way. I’m glad that you returned.

                Honestly, I think that you and I can have a constructive dialogue, just as I think that you can have a constructive dialogue with everyone else here.

                The problem that I see getting in the way of that is your posting comments like your initial comment here. It was over-the-top, an excellent, albeit more articulate, example of the kind of post that I’ve found in places like PatriotActionNetwork.com.

                Maybe you think that Jeff’s analysis was over-the-top, as well. Erudite as I think that you are capable of being, why not simply make that point without hobbling yourself by employing far Right extremist talking points, thereby rendering yourself unable to convince anyone here of anything.

                I’m an genuinely sorry that you and I got off on the wrong foot when you were posting as LookingAtLoons, and I look forward to having spirited,and more civil, debates with you in the future.

                That said, one of the reasons that we went off the rails back then was because, just as you did here, you roared in here with what appeared to be a rightwing chip on your shoulder. My reaction to that was pretty much the same as my reaction to your “Lenin/leftist” comment up above.

                Anyway, I think that if you dial it back a little bit, you’ll accomplish more here. I obviously understand the impulse to jump in with both feet, ideologically speaking, but my counsel to you would be to “take the sharp edges off” when you post.

                Good to see you back.

          2. Jeeeebus! I have to LOL at your calls for the other guy to be “civil” . Cuz Jack, you ain’t .

            I also can’t see what I’m typing, Okay I can, but it’s weird.

            In addition, I didn’t feel the rather large blanketed comparison of David Duke to all Republicans was particularly well-crafted myself. The point was made with way to broad of a brush, which I believe was the Wingnut person’s point re: mentioning Lenin.
            Just my own Humble Sorry Ass Big Steaming Pile of Dung Opinion, tossed senselessly at the feet of the Intelligent and Articulate people here.

            1. … But while David Duke is an extremist, we were not saying he was exactly the same as every Republican. At least, I don’t think that was how I interpreted it.

              She was mostly focusing on the issue of Israel and how he contrasts from most of the conservatives who are currently in power who are pro-Israel for whatever reason. She worded it horribly, but that’s what I understood.

              I personally do not think all Republicans are racist assholes. But I do think that’s a part of their base which is why some of them try to tap into it instead of focusing towards minorities who might actually believe in the conservative movement. And this is generally the reason why minorities tend to vote Democrat instead of Republican — because of that message they send out, not because they want a hand out.

                1. If that is the case, then why was it the Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights Act against the objections of many Democrats?

                  1. That’s because it’s a long history of the turnabout reach around. The dynamic between the Republicans and the Democrats even back in the 1950s were vastly different. It wasn’t nearly as black and white. This is exactly the reason why Progressives could come from the Republican Party like La Follette.

                    The shift begin to change, in that sense as soon as Calvin Coolidge came into power where he became conservative but still held onto the ideals of equality. However it began to shift, until by the point of the Great Depression, the Democrat’s decided to take the reigns of sending FDR into the ring of being a liberal and that began to change the dynamic to the point it was a gray area.

                    Then the Red Scare happened, and many former Republicans became Democrats, because they were disgusted by McCarthy’s actions.

                    Meanwhile the Democrats down south were fiercely independent, economic wise and wanted their fair share. However, they were also horribly racist. What made them change you ask? Lyndon B. Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Once another Democrat did that, the southern Democrats switched parties almost over night, just as the Republicans did prior. This is why, that famous quote – true or not came into being:”We have lost the South for a generation” anticipating a coming backlash. This is how the dynamic changed. Not because Republicans didn’t push it – it was because a Democratic President signed the bill.

                    I do actually realize Republicans did fight for Civil Rights and respect them, however I realize Republicans as of now are not the ones in the 1970s. So I am thankful for them but I am not going to be thankful for them now when they make rumors and spread them demonizing other races. I know a lot of independent Native Americans, my Grandfather included who would likely be for the conservatives at times if it were not for their racism. Like it or not, there is a part of the Republican Party that keeps tapping into the bitter base – just like how the local Dixiecrats did for years prior.

            2. Finally, someone who gets my point!

              My comments that have raised hackles here were merely to point out that some people were going overboard. This blog needs a few people to point that out when it happens. Otherwise, it is just a few guys preaching to the choir until they get very blue in the face.

  3. @Wingnut

    “My comments that have raised hackles here were merely to point out that some people were going overboard.”

    As I was saying above, W, you would have made your point more effectively if you had been more direct about it.

    Your point, not an invalid one, by the way, unfortunately got obscured by your use of an inappropriate, bomb-throwing “Lenin/leftist” linkage often employed by the rightwing fringe.

  4. @ Annie K

    “Just my own Humble [sic] Sorry [sic] Ass [sic] Big [sic] Steaming [sic] Pile [sic] of Dung [sic] Opinion [sic], tossed senselessly at the feet of the Intelligent [sic] and Articulate [sic] people here.”

    Congratulations, Annie. The first step on the road to “recovery” is recognizing that you have a problem. (*wink*)

  5. @ Jeff

    I don’t agree with Wingnut that your post was “over-the-top”.

    I was just saying that he could, and should, have framed his belief that it was in a less “extremist rightwing talking points” kind of way.

  6. @ Wingnut

    Jeff: “As Bill Maher likes to say “not all republicans are racists, but all racists are republicans.”

    Wingnut: “If that is the case, then why was it the Republicans who pushed through the Civil Rights Act against the objections of many Democrats?”

    Come on now, W, you should know better than that.

    The racist Southerners/Dixiecrats who “objected” to the Civil Rights Act were Democrats in name only. As the Republican Party, in an effort to hold onto political power, embraced The Southern Strategy crafted by people like Pat Buchanan in the late 1960s, these racist Southerners/Dixiecrats became Republicans.

    To paraphrase Forrest Gump, “Racist is as racist does.” In truth, Bill Maher hit the nail on the head.

    If Duke runs, he will run as a Republican. There’s a reason for that.

    In any event, W, you need to discard that particular rightwing canard. Seriously.

    1. Actually, the Democrats were kind of a horrible party before the Republicans all decided to jump ship to the Democrats honestly. The only thing that the Dixiecrats were good for were Economic theory, but even then they got pushed out of their party when they became Republicans only to eventually leave their parties due to age or another reason.

      It’s a huge reason why we had a massive reach-about turn around with our parties and why other countries cannot make heads or tails of how we work. Or political system is actually backwards because of it.

      That being said, I only trust Democrats a little bit more than Republicans on the national level. A lot of them use the votes of other races to climb to the top and forget about us. Then again, honestly I’m fairly libertarian or borderline anarchist in the traditional way.

  7. Zuma maher uses that line often if you watch his show or tv appearances…

    I was just heading to my computer to say the exact same thing to W, it is a tired right wing talking point.

Comments are closed.