...but in the series of photographs of Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and his interns that shani-o linked to this afternoon, we have:
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white woman
- Steele and a white woman
- Steele and an Asian-American guy
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white woman
- Steele and a white woman
- Steele and six white guys, five white women, and one black guy
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white woman
- Steele and a white guy
- Steele and a white woman
- Steele and a white guy
Maybe it's sexual preference diversity they're going for.
Posted by: thor | Saturday, 12 December 2009 at 06:31 AM
'cos you can tell from the pictures....
Posted by: Ahistoricality | Saturday, 12 December 2009 at 11:29 AM
They're not just pictures, each is a thousand words screaming at me.
Posted by: thor | Saturday, 12 December 2009 at 11:50 AM
A little bit of a cheap shot, no? I mean, we all know the demographics here. African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic, how many do you think are going to be Republican party activists? I don't think that's a sign of a preference for tokenism, rather, in a world where diversity is seen as a good thing, they have no choice but to practice tokenism. Obviously, the need for all of this is caused by a number of actual policy preferences, a bad track record on civil rights issues, etc... But making fun of the lack of black people who apply to be interns at the RNC isn't exactly engaging on those issues.
Posted by: Jesse A. | Saturday, 12 December 2009 at 06:05 PM