When did ethnicity become race?

When liberals want you in the minority plantation:

They’d be attacking him no matter what just because he’s a rising star from the other party, but yes, of course it’s true that a rising star who’s Latino complicates Democratic plans for a permanent majority in a way that some other Republican wouldn’t.

Listen to this incoherent rant, calling Rubio “brownface” for liking Tupac,

The motive for the attacks on Rubio is the threat he may pose as a rising star. The Dems would attack him regardless of why he appears to be a rising star. But there’s no doubt that Rubio’s ethnicity is a factor in the perception that he’s someone whose momentum needs to be slowed.”

It gets more interesting, as Ted Cruz is also under fire:

Cruz is under attack because he’s outdebating Democrats and making the likes of Chuck Hagel look bad. The Dems are used to dealing with Republicans who don’t forcefully take them on in debate or who, though willing to engage, have difficulty making well thought-out arguments (e.g., John McCain, the ipse dixit king).

However, I disagree with Paul Mirengoff when he says that

Cruz is something new in town, and the Dems don’t like it. But their problem with Cruz has no relation, not even an indirect one, to his ethnicity.

I know from experience that liberals will not accept a “minority” that doesn’t toe the victimization line.

After all, that’s their main industry.


Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “When did ethnicity become race?”

  1. When did ethnicity become race? - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum Says:

    [...] ethnicity become race? Quote: When liberals want you in the minority plantation: by Fausta @ When did ethnicity become race? | Fausta's Blog poses an interesting question. You can read all of it at the above [...]

  2. fuster Says:

    Could be that ted Cruz is under attack because he’s not too ethical or honest in his speech and deserves to be attacked because he makes claims that are not too sane.

    ——–

    ” He then went on to assert that Obama, who attended Harvard Law School four years ahead of him, “would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government.”

    Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried, a Republican who served as Ronald Reagan’s Solicitor General from 1985 to 1989, and who subsequently taught Cruz at the law school, suggests that his former student has his facts wrong. “I can right offhand count four “out” Republicans (including myself) and I don’t know how many closeted Republicans when Ted, who was my student and the editor on the Harvard Law Review who helped me with my Supreme Court foreword, was a student here.”
    Fried went on to say that unlike Cruz, or McCarthy, who infamously kept tallies of alleged subversives, he had never tried to count Communists. “I have not taken a poll, but I would be surprised if there were any members of the faculty who ‘believed in the Communists overthrowing the U.S. government,’” he said.

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/02/ted-cruz-sees-red-not-crimson-at-harvard.html

  3. Fausta Says:

    And how much “nuance” did ted Kennedy have, fuster?