I remember when Megyn Kelly made the statement that Santa Claus and Jesus are both white to kids. As a response to that, the left pointed out that Jesus was most likely brown, and Santa is a fictional character that is a different color depending on the household.

I also remember when NFL player Richie Incognito got in trouble for hazing and harassinga rookie. Comments were made like "the rookie should man up" and "it's just part of the game".

But similarly when Richard Sherman, another football player, was hyped about the game and arrogantly claimed to be the best cornerback in the league. He was called an "arrogant thug". And it is clear that the word "thug" in this day in age is reserved for African American young men. Why can't Sherman, in the spirit of competition, brag about his record as an athlete without being called thug, even though he was not being criminal or violent, yet Incognito, the real thug, is simply being called your typical jock.

In all honesty, the right never point out race by name, but just because they don't say "Black" doesn't mean they aren't engaging in race politics. Their tactic is different. What they like to do is present a false perception of "color blindedness" but then when it comes actual race issues, use code words and indirect allusions to play the race.

Not to mention the fact that they brush these issues off. For instance Rand Paul presented some good numbers involving race and our criminal justice system, and received a decent applause. However, whenever blacks and liberals bring these things up, we are race baiting. As if it is wrong to point out that blacks and whites use drugs at about the same rate but blacks are far more likely to be arrested and convicted for non-violent drug-related crime.

At the end of the day there are issues that affect certain races more so than others, and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

But I digress, the main point is that, both sides engage in race politics, it's just more obvious when liberals do it. The same can be said about gender politics.

Maybe because the right denies that racism/sexism even exists and thinks that the White Christian Males are the ones who are being discriminated against.

"This is absurd. While Christians may vote for a Christian, it is because of the morals Christians share. Women don't all believe in the same set of principles; there is no "Women's Bible"."

But when it comes to gender politics it is not about a set of principles, it's usually about being represented properly and the issues that affect women. Consider how our nation went to war with Great Britain because our interests were not represented in Parliament. In the entire history of the U.S. there has never been a female president? Even now more than half of the candidates are men? Yet, these are the same people who are going to effect women's lives through policy.

And this extends far beyond putting a few women in positions of power, but also having male candidates that understand the issues that matter to women. Regardless your position on feminism, women's rights, and inequality based on gender, the reality is that there is a population of women that think the U.S. treat women unjustly in certain cases. i.e. abortion laws, where some women feel like they should have the right to choose. Or income inequality (I am not saying income inequality exists, I am saying that some people view it as an issue). Thus gender politics become important.

Even on the GOP side you have women candidates who must play a certain gender role. In fact, when you mix in family values, you have to talk about a woman's role in the family. When you mix in Christianity, you have to talk about what Christians view as the role of a woman. And that's where gender politics come into play.

And I have no doubt you can be a woman or minority and gain the fancy of the GOP, that's not what we are debating. Jindal, Carson, Cain, and Rubio all represent the reality that the right can be open to a person of color, but that doesn't mean there isn't race politics there. If you look at how conservatives present these candidates, its sometimes tokenism, or the candidate used to represent how minorities should act. Though in many cases, for most Republicans, they genuinely do like the candidate.

Race Card and Gender Card are Classic Progressive tactics it's all they got in the tank !

THIS IS ABOUT ETHICS.

It is and it isn't.

How, please do tell me, is this not a question of ethics?

The facile Liberal argument is "It doesn't work" or "This is how it is".

I'm not a Liberal, so why don't you stick with what I actually say instead of partisan shtick.

The question specified parties. And people acutally say partisan shtick, and you have.

And of course, then they call people stupid.

Except I didn't, I quite clearly quoted him. It was a joke.

I don't think your insult was in jest.

And Ben Carson invalidates the sociological and socioeconomic conditions of racial groups across the entire country?

You clearly don't understand the idea of individuals. I'm saying your narrative is not entirely accurate.

Of course he polled higher; he was the Evangelical Candidate.

And now he's polling at 8%. Has he ceased to be an evangelical? Has some new candidate joined the stage? Or maybe... people have made decisions based on something else.

I guess I'm stereotyping you, but then again, IT'S INEVITABLE.

Not sure you know what stereotyping is..

You said I stereotyped you as a liberal, but then say I didn't stereotype you. Make up your mind!

Ironically, Rupert Murdoch stated that Carson would be a "real black president". I mean what is this, if not playing race politics? Its inevitable that when you have Black candidates on either side, and when you have female candidates, the question always become: Is this person the best candidate for representing (insert group here) issues? In a society where you have a diverse group of people, there will always be some form of stereotyping and generalizing. From those things come misunderstanding. And from misunderstanding comes division.