Exactly how so?
When you label D'Souza a liar, it's on you to prove he's a liar, and at least give a few examples.
I've read two of his books, WHAT'S SO GREAT ABOUT AMERICA, and THE ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE, and seen two of his documentaries. He cites sourced information. Aside from the fact that he exposes Democrats for what they are, what basis do you have to be dismissive of him?
Kruse says some psychobabble about how whites "seceded" from integrated areas of Atlanta or California, and formed "new nations" in suburb areas. As I've read of these in Buchanan's work and other sources, whites fled urban areas with increasing crime and bad schools, where they were being taxed more and the benefits were paid to unsavory others who weren't paying taxes, race unspecified. And I might add, in the California example, and no doubt Atlanta as well, many black and Asian middle class families are fleeing these urban centers for the suburbs, right along with the whites. It's not "racist" to resent paying higher taxes to pay for welfare and Medicare for people who aren't paying for it, and are often not even citizens let alone taxpayers, and you vote with your feet and go elsewhere, to stop supporting a city where you are fleeced and have no say in how your tax dollars are spent.
Kruse goes out of his way to interpret and spin things in a racial way, naming a few Republican campaign strategists who come up with hypothetical strategies to reach voters in pseudo-racial terms. But those are largely his snarky interpretation. Some of those text pages are very chopped up and vague.
Whereas D'Souza is flatout quoting Lyndon Johnson, in the most incriminating and direct words possible. Well after the Civil Rights legislation was passed in 1964, telling a black caddy that he can be called the n-word or "boy", but LBJ making clear those were his only options, and none of those options would ever come close to being treated as an equal.
The closest Kruse comes to making a clear point is with the Lee Atwater quote. But even there it's not clear he's talking strictly Republican strategy, he seems to be talking about the more subtle use of race throughout the culture. In my lifetime (at 55) I've seen the politically correct terminology go from "colored" or "negro" to "black" to "African American". Let alone the interpretation of what is considered implied racism by blacks. Or even by white liberals. Use of the football team name "Redskins" or "Seminoles" is considered offensive to many white liberal professors, but ironically no problem to many actual Native Americans.
When LBJ at the heart of Civil Rights and "Great Society" legislation, and even years after speaks derisively of and to blacks, when Harry Reid says Obama was an acceptable black presidential candidate in 2008 because he "doesn't speak black dialect that would be offensive to white voters", when Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy of Obama "a few years ago he would have been bringing us coffee", when Obama's VP and 2020 hopeful candidate Joseph Biden says Obama is "Bright, articulate and clean..." and a treasure-trove of other racial remarks, when Debbie Wasserman Bitch-Cunt Schultz conspired with other DNC leaders to smear Bernie Sanders as not of Jewish faith to make him unappealing to racist white Christian voters (who by their logic would tolerate a religious Jew, but turn on a secular Jew), to name just a few examples, I really don't see the superior moral high ground for Democrats.
All you ultimately have is another argument of "Well, Republicans do it too." Except they really don't. Not like the Dems.
