I said no such thing and go screw yourself for suggesting it. Being against racism and Jim Crow does not make one a liberal. The historical precedents for a White party strategy are parties like the Dixiecrats or American Independent Party, both defeated decisively in much Whiter times.
Thanks for maintaining such a high level of discourse.
It's exactly what you're saying, as your quote below demonstrates:
Being against racism and Jim Crow does not make one a liberal.
Where did anyone suggest promoting racism and Jim Crow? You see, you perceive any suggestion that white people have any interests at all as being racist. You perceive any suggestion that white voters should be courted as being racist and immoral. But no one feels that way about courting blacks or other minorities. All Dayton3 suggested was that the GOP should try to get more white votes (because winning the non-white vote is obviously not possible) and people think that's just the more horrible thing they've ever heard. To wit, they'd rather lose the country than try overtly to win white votes.
The historical precedents for a White party strategy are parties like the Dixiecrats or American Independent Party, both defeated decisively in much Whiter times.
Which is why I said you were probably right. Most, or at least 45% or so, of whites would rather lose the country to people like Obama and Sotomayor and La Raza than to be perceived as defending white interests. That would be "racist" in their minds, and they'd rather capitulate. And that's true even though Dayton3 and others are not suggesting the creation of a racist party. They're merely suggesting that the GOP take white interests into account when those interests are racially attacked from the left. But we live in such a PC world that that's considered racist.