people as the central players shush, don t tell them. well, cats out of the bag. it s happening. i think it happened today. thank you for the book plug, as well. thank you my friend. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. the year was 1990. republican incumbent north carolina senator jesse helms was pulling behind his black democratic challenger, a man named harvey gantt. it was a surprisingly competitive election. so helms cold in the political consultants, who helped the helms campaign figure out a way to fight back. and this is what they came up with. this ad. you needed that job. you are the best qualified. but they had to give it to a minority tick is of a racial quota. is that really fair? harvey gantt says he supports ted kennedy s racial quota law but makes the color of your skin more important than your qualifications. you ll vote on this issue next tuesday. for racial quotas, i began. it against racial quotas, jesse helms. that added, with
the year was 1990, republican incumbent of north carolina senator jesse helms was polling behind his black democratic challenger, a man named harvey gantt. it was a surprisingly competitive election, so home called in the political consultants who, in turn, helped the helms campaign figure out a way to fight back, and this is what they came up with, this ad. you needed that job, but they had to give it to a minority because of the racial quota. is that really fair? harvey gantt says it is. he supports the racial quota law, making the color of your skin more important in your qualifications. you will vote on this issue next tuesday, harvey gantt . that ad, with the white hands holding the rejection letter as the narrator intones you are a better candidate than the minority guy that they went with, can you steal the injustice of it all? that ad was exactly what senator jesse helms needed, he. term in the senate, 54 to 46%. that strategy worked. it worked well. making ga
issue a death nail in the same way that the women s liberation movement in the 70s they couldn t stop. they make abortion their hobby horse to curtail a woman s right to bodily autonomy, and they have this victory with dobbs. it feels so familiar to dobson son sense because i think it s worth lingering for a moment at least in jobs they were honest enough to say we are overturning roe v. wade. it s not even clear from the majority opinion, although functionally i think melissa is exactly right, it functionally over turns and greater and fisher and all of the affirmative action cases. it doesn t say it. and justice sotomayor and who descend calls out as you socially is saying you can t say you re not overturning it when you re overturning it. there s a level of disingenuousness. but i think that other thing that is really shocking and
types dahlia, to the dobbs parallel, it s also at odds with public opinion, where the public is on. this look at the polling. i think 57% of the public opposed the courts overturning of roe and not affirmative action should continue. ap in may of this, year 33% of the public believe supporting affirmative action in colleges is a good thing. i mean, am i wrong to say that this feels like a hangover of the civil rights era? they couldn t win on civil rights, affirmative action became the hobby horse in the late 70s and 80s, and now they issue a death nail in the same way that the women s liberation movement in the 70s they couldn t stop. they make abortion their hobby horse to curtail a woman s right to bodily autonomy, and