I think Molder's approach of avoiding identity politics and focusing on the broader issues that impact all residents is worth testing, especially in these supposedly strong red House seats.
Less flame throwing seems to work in state-wide races so why not test its effectiveness in some federal districts?
If we are going to rebuild the republic we will need to move away from identity politics.
Forgive me, but when a politician calls to ethnically cleanse a whole group of American citizens from American soil just because of who they are and what God they worship, it shouldn't be "too much" to ask for an explicit condemnation from the politician who is supposedly opposed to said ethnic cleansing.
Houston’s liberal gun club is growing fast! We teach women and POC how to shoot, urban warfare tactics to combat DHS/LEOs, and self defense. Take your power back from the fascists! We also offer safety trainings like applying tourniquets, CPR, etc.
Extreme racist comments seem to be allowed, if not encouraged, by many Republican candidates and office holders these days. It's ironic when you stop to realize that Muslims were in this country many decades before the English colonists arrived. President Jefferson even owned a copy of the Koran. (Quran). In addition, the Kurds have consistently fought with the US in multiple wars, only to be abandoned by our governnent. Ogles's language needs to be called out immediately and labeled for the despicable racism it is!
Thank you for publishing this report, Lauren, but I must say that it is rich for a publication staffed by a whole plethora of GWB administration alumni to act as though the staff are suddenly such grand defenders of American pluralism. It's all well and good and dandy that you all are trying to "protect" pluralism now, but I still haven't seen Bill Kristol take responsibility and apologize for the PATRIOT Act that he helped write, which unleashed the annihilation of American citizens' constitutional rights based on their skin color and religion. To this day, the language Mona Charen, Eliot Cohen, and Eric Edelmen utilize in their weekly podcasts when they speak about citizens and residents of countries such as the UAE, Syria, Iraq, and Iran leaves a lot to be desired in terms of actually believing in and pursuing a pluralistic worldview (to say the least). Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller were in College Republican chapters propagandizing (or at least attempting to) their classmates to fall in line behind an illegal war launched by a president who never won the popular vote. JVL basically published articles defending the entire post-9/11 surveillance state when he was at The Weekly Standard.
Or hell, why even go all the way back to 2001? In the leadup the NYC mayoral primary last year, Tim Miller basically asked Zohran Mamdani "why are you defending terrorism?" and was never called out by anyone or suffered any consequences for asking such an offensive question against someone just because of their personal religious beliefs (let alone the fact that he would have never asked any Jewish candidate for any office to defend the fact that Likud's platform literally contains the line "between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, there will only be Israeli sovereignty"). Also in the the leadup to last year's NYC mayoral primary, JVL and Sarah Longwell both said Mamdani is effectively a fool who would "normalize" antisemitism in NYC. Not to mention all the screeds you guys published all through 2024 railing against anyone who dared question the wisdom of Kamala Harris's decision to center her campaign messages on "I will always defend Israel", "I will build the most lethal military" [while prancing around the stage with Liz Cheney implicitly promising to pointlessly keep bombing even more Middle Eastern countries], and "ackshually, caring about Palestinian human rights is awful and progressives should feel awful for caring in the first place". Or even more recently, JVL - at the public taping of TNL in Minneapolis not even a month ago - made a searing "joke" about Sarah "convening a focus group of Biden to Trump voters in Dearborn to see what they thought about their life choices"; to be clear, I don't even oppose this and would fully support this. I also believe that everyone should be reminded of the consequences of their votes and should change their actions going forward there-from, but the idea that The Bulwark of all institutions suddenly cares about Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans and the "atmosphere of fear" that they live in is just a farce.
So yes, forgive me, Lauren - and all your editors at The Bulwark - but it is extremely difficult to take you guys seriously when you publish the following passage: "But anger toward Ogles wasn’t the dominant emotion they expressed—rather, it was fear. They told me they were worried that Ogles’s comments would lead to their kids getting bullied in school and provoke federal agents to harass their communities... In a way, I found this even more jarring. It was a reminder that, despite the hope and promise of this country, many Americans feel they cannot move about their lives freely without being targeted by the very people elected to represent them." How can you of all institutions be "jarr[ed]" about finally coming face to face with the very atmosphere that was affirmatively built by so many of the people who work at The Bulwark itself? The very idea and proposition indicates either a total lack of self-awareness or an unwillingness to take personal responsibility for having created this reality on the ground in the first place where there have been millions of American citizens who "feel they cannot move about their lives freely without being targeted by the very people elected to represent them".
Also, for all the consternation among the political class - including everyone at The Bulwark - about how moderate Democrats need to take control of the party, here's why no one wants moderate Democrats in control of the party anymore: "In a social media video posted last week, Molder criticized Ogles for his tweets—but not for their substance: He framed the problem not as an attack on a religious minority but as a deliberate attempt by the congressman to divert attention from other issues... “What Andy Ogles said today was outrageous,” Molder said in a flat voice. “But sadly we’ve learned to expect that from him. He wants to distract us from his multiple personal scandals, his vote to sabotage health care for rural Tennesseans, and of course today’s historic rise in gas prices. He’s been a disappointment and an embarrassment. We can do better.”When I talked to local organizers, many told me that Molder should have spoken out more forcefully. It was not too much for someone asking for their vote, they said, to defend the fundamental, constitutional idea that they were accepted in America... “It’s not a hard thing to say,” said Shun Ahmed, a community organizer born and raised in Nashville after her parents immigrated from Iraq—that “someone deserves the right to exist and thrive.”
If this is the best moderate Democrats can do when a sitting member of Congress is calling to ethnically cleanse Muslim Americans constituents in his own district from American soil, then moderate Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for being so completely out of touch with what Democratic voters are demanding. If Democratic voters can't even demand their Democratic elected officials defend the very idea of pluralism itself, what even is the point of this political party, Lauren? If moderate Democrats like Molder can't even bring himself to defend the idea of pluralism itself, how am I supposed to trust the he actually believes any Democratic Party values at all?
If The Bulwark founders renounced their former views or apologized, how would that change your feelings about them? About the mission of The Bulwark? What would it mean for the community if you took them more seriously than you do now?
I truly want to understand this in hopes that it helps me understand the extreme left and the extreme right. Like it or not everyone here shares an initial, high level goal to protect and then rebuild the republic.
I hated the Patriot Act but I will admit I have not contacted my 3 federal reps to modify it or eliminate it in years. In 2026 that's on me and not a high level staff member of Bush 2 regime.
I think the authenticity that the Bulwark founders have shown from the start and the changes that we witness in them through the years are each powerful. And maybe instructive in terms of how we need to think about letting our neighbors leave MAGA.
I appreciate your intention and hope and concern, but honestly, it's hard for me to respond because - as I listed above - so many of The Bulwark's staff still, to this day, haven't changed their views on this stuff. Edelmen and Cohen were literally using the same language to describe Iranian civilians over last weekend's episode of Shield of the Republic as they've been using for generations, virtually every other Morning Shots newsletter written by Cathy Young is a effectively a racist screed questioning the patriotism of Zohran Mamdani, JVL was essentially calling voters in Dearborn fools who deserve what Trump is doing on stage in Minneapolis not even a month ago, and just three weeks ago Tim said nothing and didn't push back at all as David Frum was essentially calling Zohran a terrorist in his podcast with Tim Miller. My point is this: It's all well and good that The Bulwark's staff now claims to be trying to preserve pluralism, but they should actually affirmatively act to do it first. As it is, even as recently as this past weekend, plenty of The Bulwark's pundits have changed almost nothing about their worldview on a whole group of people for their beliefs over the last quarter century.
I am a paying member of The Bulwark, so I clearly value their analysis. However, I will not be gaslit into ignoring the actual, factual reality on the ground and the actual historical actions that were taken by these same people. It's hard to trust that The Bulwark is serious about "defending pluralism" when they - as recently as the past weekend - so clearly indicate that their definition of "pluralism" very obviously excludes certain people. That's not me being mean or problematic; I am merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.
It's hard for me to say what I would do after some theoretical thing happens when that theoretical thing has zero chance of actually happening given the factual reality that we live in.
I definitely do not think you are being mean. I don't always understand your objectives or underlying assumptions which is why I asked the questions.
I laughed when you mentioned the Shield of the Republic. I'm a fan of the show--not because I agree with the hosts all the time but because I respect their experiences and intelligence AND their ...umm ?confidence?...., represents how we got here. I will also listen to Pod Save the World for the other side and often feel the same way....all four hosts are confident in their approaches to US foreign policy.
It seems that you have a specific version of pluralism that you presume we all understand so I'm lost w/r/t some of the examples you provided. Even those I think I understand don't seem to reflect the difference between a wish list and the numbers game of electoral politics.
I am not motivated by the identity politics of MAGA or of Democratic Party; I'm turned off by them and I'm disappointed at the lack of choice the US election system currently provides. Additionally, this game benefits MAGA because it is not trying to slice the pie into as many pieces. I almost resent that in federal races I don't have a choice--I have to vote D all the time now (because I will always vote).
This is not forever, at some point the republic will tip one way or the other.
The "they will never assimilate" canard is as old as the hills. They said it about the Irish, the Swedes, the Italians, the Poles and the Greeks. The assimilation of an ethnic community is a generational process and takes time.
Republicans should lay off the grandparents who have the hardest time assimilating and look to the children who will one day be voters. Historically Muslims tend to vote conservatively. The concerns of Muslim entrepreneurs are generally the same as non-Muslim businesspeople. Muslims are also social conservatives. If approached correctly they have been and can be consistent GOP supporters.
The message that the Republicans are sending to immigrant Muslim youth, many of whom are already citizens, is just irrational in terms of the political long game.
Democrats should appeal to immigrants not on ethnicity but appeal to them as de facto Americans. No American should ever be subjected to the ill treatment of bigots. Period.
"When I talked to local organizers, many told me that Molder should have spoken out more forcefully. It was not too much for someone asking for their vote, they said, to defend the fundamental, constitutional idea that they were accepted in America."
I agree.
If I were a candidate, I would certainly focus on the issues that are most important to the district. In this district, that includes a large Muslim population who've been frightened by the open bigotry of their elected representative.
I don't know why it's so difficult for candidates to be authentic human beings instead of stifling their principles and values, perhaps under the guidance of campaign managers in an effort to not offend potential voters.
This is one of the things that makes people distrust politicians.
As a Nashvillian and a believer in the Constitution, it enrages me that Republicans allow this human stain of a legislator to go unchallenged and unpunished. Ogles deserves ouster. Our Kurdish, and all immigrant, neighbors deserve our support and respect. They do not deserve Ogles. Or the Republicans who make him possible.
This is not only happens in Nashville it happens everywhere. It is a discrace. I personally know many muslims,the most of them are devoted familymembers, just like most americans, they make fantatic food , different in different countries, just like in americas different states, they go to their church and coll i mosce, and pray to one God just as americans. I aalso know people from many other countries who have traditions different from mine, it has enriched my life to learn from them,(and maybe my cooking)
Just remember who created this atmosphere of fear for Muslim Americans back in the early 2000s that has continued to this day. Hint: Many of them work at The Bulwark
Republican culture wars and Democrats playing identity politics and complaining about culture wars has left most people waiting for someone to offer real solutions for reversing our declining upward mobility. The model for what works is all around Tennessee: Beshear in KY, Cooper and now Stein in NC, Spanberger in VA.
Offer concrete solutions to the economic problems everyone faces, talk like a normal person, avoid hate speech or calling the other party’s voters “deplorables.”
Please, Republicans have played identity politics for years. Real Americans, Heritage Americans, Stay at home moms are real moms not those working moms, hard working Americans not welfare queens, 'we entered the USA legally (while most are descendants pre-1917 immigrants when you were allowed into USA as long as you were able-bodied and European, real men not those feminized dudes, real coffee not latte drinking East Coast elites, country not city, and numerous other identities. But, guess as long as the identify fits Republicans decades long definition of real Americans, it's not identify politics?
it really blows my mind that while I have to comply with anti-discrimination laws at my job or risk expulsion, an elected representative in congress doesn’t face any consequences. An elected representative’s job is to serve ALL of their constituents, not just the ones they like, agree with, or who voted for them. If they can’t honor that because there’s a certain population of their constituency they hate, they shouldn’t run for office. If they get into office showing such a blatant contempt for their constituents based on their legally protected characteristics, they should be expelled. Unfortunately around half of the people whose job it would be to expel them have no integrity and probably even agree with him.
Just once, just once or would be nice to watch a racist POS Republican pol fail. That he continues to succeed is a pretty strong data point for the "the South is still irredeemably racist and happy about it" crowd to flag.
I expect no better from conservatives - especially southern conservatives. Keep in mind that Southern votes have been holding this country back from the very beginning.
Thanks Lauren, I had no idea Nashville holds Little Kurdistan.
I am ogling Andy wishing Amos would slap him upside the head.
I think Molder's approach of avoiding identity politics and focusing on the broader issues that impact all residents is worth testing, especially in these supposedly strong red House seats.
Less flame throwing seems to work in state-wide races so why not test its effectiveness in some federal districts?
If we are going to rebuild the republic we will need to move away from identity politics.
Forgive me, but when a politician calls to ethnically cleanse a whole group of American citizens from American soil just because of who they are and what God they worship, it shouldn't be "too much" to ask for an explicit condemnation from the politician who is supposedly opposed to said ethnic cleansing.
Houston’s liberal gun club is growing fast! We teach women and POC how to shoot, urban warfare tactics to combat DHS/LEOs, and self defense. Take your power back from the fascists! We also offer safety trainings like applying tourniquets, CPR, etc.
GET INVOLVED LOCALLY!
Extreme racist comments seem to be allowed, if not encouraged, by many Republican candidates and office holders these days. It's ironic when you stop to realize that Muslims were in this country many decades before the English colonists arrived. President Jefferson even owned a copy of the Koran. (Quran). In addition, the Kurds have consistently fought with the US in multiple wars, only to be abandoned by our governnent. Ogles's language needs to be called out immediately and labeled for the despicable racism it is!
Racism is as old as the hills in America. SSDD. Appealing to it is also a long tradition here.
Thank you for publishing this report, Lauren, but I must say that it is rich for a publication staffed by a whole plethora of GWB administration alumni to act as though the staff are suddenly such grand defenders of American pluralism. It's all well and good and dandy that you all are trying to "protect" pluralism now, but I still haven't seen Bill Kristol take responsibility and apologize for the PATRIOT Act that he helped write, which unleashed the annihilation of American citizens' constitutional rights based on their skin color and religion. To this day, the language Mona Charen, Eliot Cohen, and Eric Edelmen utilize in their weekly podcasts when they speak about citizens and residents of countries such as the UAE, Syria, Iraq, and Iran leaves a lot to be desired in terms of actually believing in and pursuing a pluralistic worldview (to say the least). Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller were in College Republican chapters propagandizing (or at least attempting to) their classmates to fall in line behind an illegal war launched by a president who never won the popular vote. JVL basically published articles defending the entire post-9/11 surveillance state when he was at The Weekly Standard.
Or hell, why even go all the way back to 2001? In the leadup the NYC mayoral primary last year, Tim Miller basically asked Zohran Mamdani "why are you defending terrorism?" and was never called out by anyone or suffered any consequences for asking such an offensive question against someone just because of their personal religious beliefs (let alone the fact that he would have never asked any Jewish candidate for any office to defend the fact that Likud's platform literally contains the line "between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, there will only be Israeli sovereignty"). Also in the the leadup to last year's NYC mayoral primary, JVL and Sarah Longwell both said Mamdani is effectively a fool who would "normalize" antisemitism in NYC. Not to mention all the screeds you guys published all through 2024 railing against anyone who dared question the wisdom of Kamala Harris's decision to center her campaign messages on "I will always defend Israel", "I will build the most lethal military" [while prancing around the stage with Liz Cheney implicitly promising to pointlessly keep bombing even more Middle Eastern countries], and "ackshually, caring about Palestinian human rights is awful and progressives should feel awful for caring in the first place". Or even more recently, JVL - at the public taping of TNL in Minneapolis not even a month ago - made a searing "joke" about Sarah "convening a focus group of Biden to Trump voters in Dearborn to see what they thought about their life choices"; to be clear, I don't even oppose this and would fully support this. I also believe that everyone should be reminded of the consequences of their votes and should change their actions going forward there-from, but the idea that The Bulwark of all institutions suddenly cares about Muslim Americans and Arab-Americans and the "atmosphere of fear" that they live in is just a farce.
So yes, forgive me, Lauren - and all your editors at The Bulwark - but it is extremely difficult to take you guys seriously when you publish the following passage: "But anger toward Ogles wasn’t the dominant emotion they expressed—rather, it was fear. They told me they were worried that Ogles’s comments would lead to their kids getting bullied in school and provoke federal agents to harass their communities... In a way, I found this even more jarring. It was a reminder that, despite the hope and promise of this country, many Americans feel they cannot move about their lives freely without being targeted by the very people elected to represent them." How can you of all institutions be "jarr[ed]" about finally coming face to face with the very atmosphere that was affirmatively built by so many of the people who work at The Bulwark itself? The very idea and proposition indicates either a total lack of self-awareness or an unwillingness to take personal responsibility for having created this reality on the ground in the first place where there have been millions of American citizens who "feel they cannot move about their lives freely without being targeted by the very people elected to represent them".
Also, for all the consternation among the political class - including everyone at The Bulwark - about how moderate Democrats need to take control of the party, here's why no one wants moderate Democrats in control of the party anymore: "In a social media video posted last week, Molder criticized Ogles for his tweets—but not for their substance: He framed the problem not as an attack on a religious minority but as a deliberate attempt by the congressman to divert attention from other issues... “What Andy Ogles said today was outrageous,” Molder said in a flat voice. “But sadly we’ve learned to expect that from him. He wants to distract us from his multiple personal scandals, his vote to sabotage health care for rural Tennesseans, and of course today’s historic rise in gas prices. He’s been a disappointment and an embarrassment. We can do better.”When I talked to local organizers, many told me that Molder should have spoken out more forcefully. It was not too much for someone asking for their vote, they said, to defend the fundamental, constitutional idea that they were accepted in America... “It’s not a hard thing to say,” said Shun Ahmed, a community organizer born and raised in Nashville after her parents immigrated from Iraq—that “someone deserves the right to exist and thrive.”
If this is the best moderate Democrats can do when a sitting member of Congress is calling to ethnically cleanse Muslim Americans constituents in his own district from American soil, then moderate Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for being so completely out of touch with what Democratic voters are demanding. If Democratic voters can't even demand their Democratic elected officials defend the very idea of pluralism itself, what even is the point of this political party, Lauren? If moderate Democrats like Molder can't even bring himself to defend the idea of pluralism itself, how am I supposed to trust the he actually believes any Democratic Party values at all?
If The Bulwark founders renounced their former views or apologized, how would that change your feelings about them? About the mission of The Bulwark? What would it mean for the community if you took them more seriously than you do now?
I truly want to understand this in hopes that it helps me understand the extreme left and the extreme right. Like it or not everyone here shares an initial, high level goal to protect and then rebuild the republic.
I hated the Patriot Act but I will admit I have not contacted my 3 federal reps to modify it or eliminate it in years. In 2026 that's on me and not a high level staff member of Bush 2 regime.
I think the authenticity that the Bulwark founders have shown from the start and the changes that we witness in them through the years are each powerful. And maybe instructive in terms of how we need to think about letting our neighbors leave MAGA.
I appreciate your intention and hope and concern, but honestly, it's hard for me to respond because - as I listed above - so many of The Bulwark's staff still, to this day, haven't changed their views on this stuff. Edelmen and Cohen were literally using the same language to describe Iranian civilians over last weekend's episode of Shield of the Republic as they've been using for generations, virtually every other Morning Shots newsletter written by Cathy Young is a effectively a racist screed questioning the patriotism of Zohran Mamdani, JVL was essentially calling voters in Dearborn fools who deserve what Trump is doing on stage in Minneapolis not even a month ago, and just three weeks ago Tim said nothing and didn't push back at all as David Frum was essentially calling Zohran a terrorist in his podcast with Tim Miller. My point is this: It's all well and good that The Bulwark's staff now claims to be trying to preserve pluralism, but they should actually affirmatively act to do it first. As it is, even as recently as this past weekend, plenty of The Bulwark's pundits have changed almost nothing about their worldview on a whole group of people for their beliefs over the last quarter century.
I am a paying member of The Bulwark, so I clearly value their analysis. However, I will not be gaslit into ignoring the actual, factual reality on the ground and the actual historical actions that were taken by these same people. It's hard to trust that The Bulwark is serious about "defending pluralism" when they - as recently as the past weekend - so clearly indicate that their definition of "pluralism" very obviously excludes certain people. That's not me being mean or problematic; I am merely pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.
It's hard for me to say what I would do after some theoretical thing happens when that theoretical thing has zero chance of actually happening given the factual reality that we live in.
I definitely do not think you are being mean. I don't always understand your objectives or underlying assumptions which is why I asked the questions.
I laughed when you mentioned the Shield of the Republic. I'm a fan of the show--not because I agree with the hosts all the time but because I respect their experiences and intelligence AND their ...umm ?confidence?...., represents how we got here. I will also listen to Pod Save the World for the other side and often feel the same way....all four hosts are confident in their approaches to US foreign policy.
It seems that you have a specific version of pluralism that you presume we all understand so I'm lost w/r/t some of the examples you provided. Even those I think I understand don't seem to reflect the difference between a wish list and the numbers game of electoral politics.
I am not motivated by the identity politics of MAGA or of Democratic Party; I'm turned off by them and I'm disappointed at the lack of choice the US election system currently provides. Additionally, this game benefits MAGA because it is not trying to slice the pie into as many pieces. I almost resent that in federal races I don't have a choice--I have to vote D all the time now (because I will always vote).
This is not forever, at some point the republic will tip one way or the other.
The "they will never assimilate" canard is as old as the hills. They said it about the Irish, the Swedes, the Italians, the Poles and the Greeks. The assimilation of an ethnic community is a generational process and takes time.
Republicans should lay off the grandparents who have the hardest time assimilating and look to the children who will one day be voters. Historically Muslims tend to vote conservatively. The concerns of Muslim entrepreneurs are generally the same as non-Muslim businesspeople. Muslims are also social conservatives. If approached correctly they have been and can be consistent GOP supporters.
The message that the Republicans are sending to immigrant Muslim youth, many of whom are already citizens, is just irrational in terms of the political long game.
Democrats should appeal to immigrants not on ethnicity but appeal to them as de facto Americans. No American should ever be subjected to the ill treatment of bigots. Period.
That mural is beautiful
"When I talked to local organizers, many told me that Molder should have spoken out more forcefully. It was not too much for someone asking for their vote, they said, to defend the fundamental, constitutional idea that they were accepted in America."
I agree.
If I were a candidate, I would certainly focus on the issues that are most important to the district. In this district, that includes a large Muslim population who've been frightened by the open bigotry of their elected representative.
I don't know why it's so difficult for candidates to be authentic human beings instead of stifling their principles and values, perhaps under the guidance of campaign managers in an effort to not offend potential voters.
This is one of the things that makes people distrust politicians.
Expecting any different from a moderate Democrat is a fool's fantasy. If you want real Democrats, elect real Democrats.
I know of moderate Democrats who don't compromise their principles and speak out. Like Andy Beshear.
As a Nashvillian and a believer in the Constitution, it enrages me that Republicans allow this human stain of a legislator to go unchallenged and unpunished. Ogles deserves ouster. Our Kurdish, and all immigrant, neighbors deserve our support and respect. They do not deserve Ogles. Or the Republicans who make him possible.
This is not only happens in Nashville it happens everywhere. It is a discrace. I personally know many muslims,the most of them are devoted familymembers, just like most americans, they make fantatic food , different in different countries, just like in americas different states, they go to their church and coll i mosce, and pray to one God just as americans. I aalso know people from many other countries who have traditions different from mine, it has enriched my life to learn from them,(and maybe my cooking)
Just remember who created this atmosphere of fear for Muslim Americans back in the early 2000s that has continued to this day. Hint: Many of them work at The Bulwark
Tennessee is 48% independent
https://independentvoterproject.org/voter-stats/tn
Republican culture wars and Democrats playing identity politics and complaining about culture wars has left most people waiting for someone to offer real solutions for reversing our declining upward mobility. The model for what works is all around Tennessee: Beshear in KY, Cooper and now Stein in NC, Spanberger in VA.
Offer concrete solutions to the economic problems everyone faces, talk like a normal person, avoid hate speech or calling the other party’s voters “deplorables.”
Please, Republicans have played identity politics for years. Real Americans, Heritage Americans, Stay at home moms are real moms not those working moms, hard working Americans not welfare queens, 'we entered the USA legally (while most are descendants pre-1917 immigrants when you were allowed into USA as long as you were able-bodied and European, real men not those feminized dudes, real coffee not latte drinking East Coast elites, country not city, and numerous other identities. But, guess as long as the identify fits Republicans decades long definition of real Americans, it's not identify politics?
Great column about an interesting pocket of America. I’d like to hear more!
it really blows my mind that while I have to comply with anti-discrimination laws at my job or risk expulsion, an elected representative in congress doesn’t face any consequences. An elected representative’s job is to serve ALL of their constituents, not just the ones they like, agree with, or who voted for them. If they can’t honor that because there’s a certain population of their constituency they hate, they shouldn’t run for office. If they get into office showing such a blatant contempt for their constituents based on their legally protected characteristics, they should be expelled. Unfortunately around half of the people whose job it would be to expel them have no integrity and probably even agree with him.
Just once, just once or would be nice to watch a racist POS Republican pol fail. That he continues to succeed is a pretty strong data point for the "the South is still irredeemably racist and happy about it" crowd to flag.
Voters chose Ogles. The electorate is rotten.
I expect no better from conservatives - especially southern conservatives. Keep in mind that Southern votes have been holding this country back from the very beginning.