Captain Ed has the best post I have read in a long time, discussing Jesse Helms’s refusal to disavow his segregationist past in his new book:
“We will never know how integration might have been achieved in neighborhoods across our land, because the opportunity was snatched away by outside agitators who had their own agendas to advance,
Damn, John, tell it like it is…
…many people know in their heart that our side was not the force of change or integration (and spare me petty arguments about how it was Southern Democrats who voted against Civil Rights, and, yes, I know how Al Gore’s father voted and that Robert Byrd was in the KKK).
Our side did what it could from the end of Reconstruction to the 1964 Act. But it wasn’t until the Other Side took the plunge–risking its winning coalition on this principle–that anything substantial could be accomplished.
So kudos to Humphrey, JFK, Johnson, etc. But let’s not imagine that Democrats invented modern civil rights. More of a case of “what took your party so long?”
And we eagerly welcomed into our ranks those who fled the Democratic party into our own, with minimal admonishment and a clear understanding of the electoral benefits.
While many in the modern Civil Rights movement are loathesome- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, it is no great stretch of the imagination to believe that Medgar Evers and MLK probably would have been uncomfortbale in the modern GOP.
Failing to recognize that is to re-write history.
Well, well, Rick.
What is taking your party so long to recognize that gay people, law abiding, tax paying, responsible citizens and honorable members of our armed forces, should get the same rights and protections afforded all other citizens?
If you’ve already taken that position, then of course, you’ll get kudos from me. Along with the companion question, “Why do you belong to a party that would try to garner votes by deliberately treating those citizens as if they were inferior?”
While Dixie has been voting GOP in Presidential elections pretty consistantly since 1972–post Wallace–the representation there changed over time. The pubbies became the majority party (as measured by Govs and legislators) there I believe only with the ’94 rout.
The point is, there was no post-64 stampede to the GOP. Why, the ‘pubbies were held to be the party of Lincoln, carpetbaggers and nigra-lovers and traditionally, “nigras” themselves (indeed, the Senate’s lone Black was Ed Brooke, R-MA) by the yellow dog Dems.
And they stayed Dem and voted Dem until they died out. A newly eligible and registered, firebreathing yellow dog Democrat on the day of the signing of the Civil Rights Act is now, at minimum, 65 years old. Mostly, they died rather than switch.
Like their Lost Cause pappys and grandpappys.
But the younger Southern whites had no particular allegiance to the Democrats, and so registration balances began to shift.
Rick- I think Democrats overstate the flight to the GOP, so we agree.
However, we have far more of those with the segregationist mindset and the segregationist lineage in the current Republican party than in the Democratic party. Far more than I, and I believe you, are comfortable with. That doesn;t mean everyone in the GOP is racist, bu a lot more of them find comfort and solace in the GOP than they do in the Democratic party. Take it for what it is worth. It is much the same as the fact that the ANSWER crowd may not represent the Democrats position on issues, but there are far more of them in the Democratic party than in the GOP.
Actually, if you look at the 64 vote, most northern Democrats joined with the Republicans to pass the Civil Rights Act, and pro-civil rights language was in the Democratic Platform as of 48 (ergo, the Dixiecrats). The Democratic Party was pretty split, it’s not like all of a sudden LBJ decided to go on a limb, risking his entire party.
That being said, I don’t know very many fellow Dems who are at all proud of the Democratic Party’s history on race relations. It wasn’t until 72 that it really become a consolidated position; I note that’s also around the time Helms, Thurmond, etc. decided to leave into the warm embrace of the post-Goldwater GOP.
I’d also note that from 1964 to 1994, the Democrats elected by the South tended to have much mroe in common, ideologically, with the Republican party than the main body of the Democratic Party. So even though Republicans weren’t in the majority, a good number of Southern Dems tended to side with them.
Still, the fact remains: nobody’s hands were clean on race back then. And I think largely due to the influence of the Goldwaterites who encouraged the migration of the worst of the Dixiecrats, the GOP’s been rather slow on race since (admittedly, most of the leaders of the civil rights movement suck…I went to Tawana Brawley’s high school, so I have no love for Al Sharpton, and while I have no strong antipathy for Jesse Jackson, I could probably do without him, too).
So feel free to ask us “What took your party so long?” because I’ll ask it myself. But in that spirit, “Why did you nominate Goldwater and let in the Dixiecrats?” If it weren’t for Nixon and Goldwater, they could be off forming their own marginal third party right now. To hell with all of them.
However, we have far more of those with the segregationist mindset and the segregationist lineage in the current Republican party than in the Democratic party.
The remnant of white segregationist, sure, among the current evils of the world. Thus, David Duke’s 1988 candidacy. Ten years earlier, he’d have been a Dem, and 20 years earlier, elected.
But the remnant is a flake of dandruff on the body politic, compared to Lott’s and Thurmond’s fondly remembered late-40s. Certainly, the lineage advances no segregationist agenda.
The whole triumph of the 60s civil rights legislation served to expose the segrationists scaremongering to be the empty demagogy more reasonable folks knew it to be. Even the Southrons recognized it.
My feelings on this are strong, since my early-90s hero, Jack Kemp, revealed total fumble mouth and feet of clay on this issue in his “debate” (he was an pimp-slapped punching bag) with Al Gore in 1996.
Bush outpointed Al Gore, so that shows how I overestimated Kemp. Here he let Prince Al condescend on the issue of civil rights, when his own daddy was a particular offender. Unbelievable.
Yes, I know. That’s why I led off with Humphrey, who made a famous civil rights appeal in the ’48 convention.
Should’ve mentioned Truman and Eleanor. But, not to get carried away with Dem praise, I’d balance it with the observation that Woodrow Wilson was quite an enemy of black civil rights.
So the pubbie window to make big strides–an seized–was from 1921 to 1931, when the Depression made the GOP quite the minority party.
Efforts to pass a federal anti-lynching law in those days were consistantly killed by filibuster.
The Republic was Saved! Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, and all.
Back to the original post:
That’s why I worked for Harvey Gantt in the 1996 Senate race. Helms was an embarrassment to the state of NC for exactly the reasons you have offered, John, and more. (Much as I view Senator Byrd to be an embarrassment to the state of WV, btw.)
As to the move from D to R by the South-
It is always a clever if deceptive practice to start from a demonstrably high or low point to show the success or failure of a program.
EXAMPLE: Paul Krugman will often point to the jobs numbers of 2000 as evidence that President Bush’s economic policies are terrible without acknowledging that the tech bubble artificially inflated employment in the late 1990’s.
That same strategy is what many Dems do with party balance after the CRA’s. Dems held 2/3rds of federal elected offices in 1964. So quite naturally there was a swing, in a two party system, back toward a 50-50 country.
Also, I would like to offer that the Republicans have offered a vision of muscular foreign policy that appeals to many in the South, Central Plains and Mountain West. This strategy has not been matched by the likes of Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton or Kerry. That matters too.
Finally, if any of you posting about race in the South haven’t lived in the South then you don’t know of what you speak. (A two week vacation to golf on the SC coast does not count.) The trends are clear as most young Southerners harbor few of their parents’ or grandparents’ views about race. It’s just a matter of waiting for a majority of the older racists to shuffle off this mortal coil.
(A two week vacation to golf on the SC coast does not count.)
Me and the bride can manage only one week at HH per year. So I’m not basing my anthropological, Southrons-in-the-Mist comments on that “experience.”
Neither can it be because I live just 1 1/2 miles from Virginia. Because that part of Virginia is cerulian-blue Arlington.
Hokie mentioned Barry Goldwater, whom I’d been about to bring up. Rick, you make good points describing the post-’64 realignment, but leave out Goldwater’s influence.
This is a sad one for me, because Goldwater was a good man, a true conservative, and a genuine anti-racist who desegregated Arizona’s National Guard well in advance of Truman’s desegregation of the national military.
He had an amusing response, on the campaign trail, when asked how he could vote against the ’64 Civil Rights Act. He described all the laws he’d like to vote for but couldn’t. (Highlights: A law requiring Soviet diplomats to wear red clown suits when they left their embassies, and a law sentencing the head of the “Kluxers” to be a domestic servant for a black couple he knew, to learn some class.) He counted the Civil Rights Act among laws he considered it beyond his constitutional authority to enact. And he was wrong.
It was a principled stand that pained him, but he was still very wrong. And he cared more about fidelity to his political principles than about helping stop a manifest evil. I wish he’d said, the hell with it, do the right thing now and worry about ideology later. A slippery slope, yes, but all government takes place on one.
Now how the hell were blacks going to go on as Republicans when the single most nationally prominent Republican had voted against the Civil Rights Act? That stand outweighed both Eisenhower’s dispatching the Army to Little Rock to enforce a desegregation order and the congressional Republicans’ heavier support for the Civil Rights Act than the Democrats’. (Much as Nixon’s Southern Strategy outweighed his progress in desegregating schools.)
We can argue the fine points of political history, but ultimately I’m with John. My party, my philosophy, is seen today as more congenial to the ex-Democrats who really were the bad guys, back in the day. (And despite what many of John’s newer readers may think, there’s nothing in conservative principles that makes this necessary.) That disgusts me.
That’s seven more days that I can afford. :)
Republicans aren’t all racists but most racists are republicans. Its definately the party of those who believe this country would be better off if a lot of people who don’t belong here anyway, would just get up and leave and go home.
JG, answer me this:
Why were the largest race riots during the Civil Rights Movement in Boston?
And please offer the evidence you have to substantiate your point.
I have no idea. I was born in the 70’s. Might have a connection in some way to the Sox being the last team to field a black player and how Bill Russell was treated. Why?
JG, world’s most ardent Dem here …saying that your blurb is a cheap shot at Repubs.
There’s no data that I know of to support the claim that “most racists are Republicans.”
Besides, the whole “your mother wears combat boots” approach to these issues is not very productive. We could just as easily say, most Communists are Democrats. Most egomaniacs are Ralph Naderites. Most proctologists are a pain in the ….
Anyway, I’m never very impressed with arguments like that. It smacks of “well, we may have some bad points, but just look at THEM.” That’s Limbaughism. The refuge of the Good Old Boys clubs and the Holier Than Thou types.
Seems to me the way to get better political parties is to focus on what’s admirable in a party. Whichever party.
Birkel’s got a point, JG. Boston is monolithically liberal, and there are some pretty shocking racial attitudes.
(To the left, the apparent contradiction–I see none–is solved by branding our racists “conservative” Democrats. Sure they vote for Kennedy and Kerry, but they’re racists, so that makes them conservative on race. See how it works, Birkel?)
This is part of the reason I have had such a bee in my bonnet about the all-out demonization of homosexuals
So you demonize religious people instead.
Double standard anyone?
It is a well-established pattern that Dems have a need to feel morally superior to their political enemies. Look at the list of complaints Dems have had recently:
cheaters (stolen election of 2000)
dishonest workers (paraphrasing Chariman Dean)
zealots and/or theocrats
Surely the Republican side is guilty of name calling too but I would argue it’s not as widespread amongst the Republican leadership as amongst the Dem leadership. Also, I would argue the rhetoric of the Right doesn’t impugn the morality of the Left in the same way as the names called by the Left do to the Right.
(Maybe this is selection bias on my part and I welcome corrections from the readers or the host.)
So you demonize religious people instead.
You caught me. I hate all religious people. How can I argue with your unimpeachable logic?
Just talking from personal experiance. Never met a racist who wasn’t republican.
Bostons liberal? I guesss with Mumbles as mayor it would seem that way but if you go to the bars and talk to the working class people you’ll find they are not friends of Hillary. You’re thinking of Cambridge.
“It is a well-established pattern that Dems have a need to feel morally superior to their political enemies.”
Holy cow, don’t I know it. But I know it because I’m a conservative surrounded by liberals.
On the rare occasion when I’m with a bunch of conservatives and there’s some liberal getting pounced on, I find conservatives, taken as a breed, can be every bit as smug, self-satisfied and self-righteous. I generally find myself standing up for the liberal (not on the substance but on the form of the argument).
So I have to quibble. I’d love to second that, but you’ll have to replace “Dems” with “People” before I can.
The one big exception I would offer revolves around abortion. Republicans are all too prone to calling Democrats baby killers. Democrats are all too prone to calling Republicans mysoginists for wanting to restrict a woman’s right to choose.
On this score I find both positions offensive but the Republicans’ rhetoric more offensive, BY FAR, than the Dems’ rhetoric.
Just trying to be fair.
Nothing to add, but nice thread, everyone (well, almost–thanks for blowing it, shark). Happy to see everyone playing well together. It’s like we’re all in this country together or something.
Well said Mr. Cole.
I’m not saying republicans are racists. I’m saying racists are republicans. At least the ones I know.
Geez, JG. You’re going to define “liberal” as “friends of Hillary”? I hate to argue from authority but, trust me, Boston is damned well politically liberal. You can only get around this by defining unpleasant racial attitudes as “conservative”, in which case your argument is circular.
I’ll sadly concede your point on a statistical basis–despite my gratitude to ppgaz for the interjection above–because I know more anti-black racists to the right of center than to the left.
That said, I know some genuine racists to the left-of-center, and I have conservative Christian friends who put off lucrative careers to help (mostly black) disadvantaged kids in the inner city. (Not as a statement, just because it was something they needed to do.)
As for your statement on the right thinking people should “just get up and leave and go home”, that’s a lot more confused with respect to left/right boundaries. And, if I may get personal, you wouldn’t believe some of the comments I’ve heard about Middle Easterners from impeccably liberal, well-educated acquaintances who mistake my last name for Italian.
Apparently you haven’t lived in Boston with a black roommate. I have.
A bit of background:
My friend and I went to high school together. George Washington Carver High School in W-S, NC, to be precise. We went to different colleges but both got in to Harvard and roomed together. We went out socially nearly every day for dinner, drinks or whatever.
And we had loads of conversations about racism of the North versus racism of the South. Many times those occurrences were after nights of drinks so it’s not all entirely clear. But the theme is this: Southerners are more likley to be outwardly racist and Northerners are more likely to be subtlely racist. And it’s obvious after just a little while.
EXAMPLE: He gave up asking directions after a while. They never seemed to lead where he wanted to go. I could turn up the Southern accent and they’d treat me like the li’l dumb Southern boy who was lost. Good directions every time. Funny that.
Now, I’m using where one lives as a proxy for political views but that seems appropriate to me. You’re wrong. Just so you know. And offensive to boot.
You say you object to the form when conservatives are bashing liberals? When was the last time that happened when the roles were reversed?
I would argue it’s not as widespread amongst the Republican leadership as amongst the Dem leadership. Also, I would argue the rhetoric of the Right doesn’t impugn the morality of the Left in the same way as the names called by the Left do to the Right.
I think you’ve juiced this comment thread to 100+ response potential. All the ancient grievances are now summoned, including bin Laden’s lamenting the loss of Al Andalus in 1492.
JG: David Duke I mentioned earlier. How many racists do you know?
Just in case anyone is confused, there are ample racists for both parties.
You need go no farther to some of the union coal towns of West Virginia to find some bona fide racist Democrats.
Yeah. Actually kind of worrisome. Usually the only time people are this civil is in the wake of tragedy. Someone should really stir up some hostility, just so we can reassure ourselves that everything’s basically all right.
Holy cow. A friend of mine from college–black, from Mississippi, went to a bucolic school in the Northeast–had exactly the same take: “You all [Northern whites] are no better [on race than Southern whites], you’re just sneakier!”
As for the last time a liberal stuck up for a conservative, on the grounds that an argument was unfair? I think it was ppgaz, vide supra, actually.
Seriously, among my faculty colleagues, it’s been known to happen. One or two of my friends among them, watching me seethe as a whole table basically rants on about what a sack of bastards conservatives are, has been known to say “Wait a minute.” They want to agree, but they’re fair-minded enough to acknowledge the existence of exceptions.
But if this never happened (and there are long stretches where it doesn’t), I’d still have to object when I think we’re being unfair.
I meant in your social circle not on the web.
And yes, I noted ppgaz’ comment above. It was refreshing.
I did not notice many liberals taking up for conservatives during my years of grad school. Anecdotal but it colors my impressions to be sure.
As to racism in the North, JPS: I’m sure both your friend and mine noticed it because it was there.
An old expression:
In the South a black man can get as high as he wants (economically) but not too close.
In the North a black man can get as close as he wants (socially) but not too high.
Some truth therein, me thinks…
Well, add this to your comments, John:
Apparently you haven’t lived in Boston with a black roommate. I have.
Didn’t have a black roomate but I was born in Boston and lived there for 25 years. From South Boston no less. Home of the forced busing race riots in the 70’s. Went to school in a black neighborhood because of busing too. My high school was the one Ray Flynn stood in front of and demanded black stdent busses return to their neighborhoods (ironically he later became mayor and forcefully integrated the cities housing projects, I lived in one of those too).
What house at harvard did you live in? I worked in Adams and Dunster/Mather when I was a teenager. Its a Boston tradition BTW to never give anyone proper directions. LOL
Birkel, as to your post about partisan name-calling, that sword most definitely cuts both ways. Remember Newt Gingrich’s infamous playbook–the one that contained the list of words Republicans should use to describe other Republicans (bold, powerful, traditional, patriotic, American, etc.) and the list of descriptions to use on Democrats (sick, libelous, traitorous, hurtful, etc.)? And remember that the recommendation was to “go negative early, often, and don’t let up?”
The point is, both parties have filthy hands when it comes to this name-calling crap, in part because it works. To claim one party is “worse” than the other or more egregious just doesn’t work because there’s a slew of horrible examples from both sides.
Everybody wants to claim the moral high ground. Sadly, the more one tries to claim it, the less legitimate his claims are likely to be.
You are wrong. The quote, by a poem from Dick Gregory, goes:
“In the South they don’t mind how close I get,
so long as I don’t get too big.
In the North they don’t mind how big I get,
so long as I don’t get too close.”
>We recognize why many African->Americans to this day still >refuse to give the GOP a chance.
Bob Jones University.
All reasons why as a black man I would sooner eat broken glass than vote for a Republican.
As the OP rightly pointed out, Robert Byrd’s past is not an issue with us because we know he renounced it. The Racialists of our party are completely dead as a political force.
The Southern Racialists still have influence in your party. It ony takes the obligatory visit of a Republican candidate to Bob Jones University or his/her inability to denouce the Confederate flag as the racist symbol it has become to remind blacks of that during each presidential season.
BTW, Reagan blew his chance with the black community by the manner in which he opposed the MLK holiday.
(“Is Martin Luther King a Communist? We’ll know in about 35 years”)
There is an entire class of educated, affluent blacks who will never, ever give Republicans the time of day because of people like Helms.
May I suggest that all the names I listed have been used in the last week. I notice you went back to Gingrich.
I find one example, abortion–listed above, in which I think Republicans are worse but many more (and at higher levels) of Dems calling names. And I can say the names they call are substantively worse.
And yes, I know that Rick Santorum used the boneheaded “Hitler” comment a little while back. Thankfully I remember it because not too many others have made such stupid remards on the Right.
I didn’t live in a House. I was there for grad school as was not-so-clearly explicated above. (“We went to different colleges…)
Funny. I always got accurate directions. My black roommate did not. Now you were saying…
And if you wish to use your 25 years in Boston to explain why you know better than me about Northern racism since I only spent 2 years there, then you’ll kindly hold your tongue about the South, I suppose. ‘Cause I’m guessing my 25 in the South beats your however many…
This has been a really good thread so far, but something is sticking in my craw here – Isn’t John Cole’s main point that the Republicans have MORE dirt on their hands when it comes to racism than Democrats? invoking images of racists 40 years ago fighting to keep black schoolkids out of white schools (Republicans have in their ranks the ‘same kind’ as those blocking the schoolchildren), when in fact it was Southern Democrats doing that? Isn’t Mr. Cole perpetuating a Democrat race baiting myth here to a large extent, which cannot be substantiated by fact? I mean c’mon, Cole’s claim that racists feel more comfortable in the Republican party?? this is ridiculous crap and he should take it back.
I’m not twisting words here, this is what he said and I think he was pretty damn clear about it
It is historically accurate to say that it was Democrat filibusters which were used to block Republican anti-lynching legislation.. And Republicans are the one who should be running around with a guilt complex about race?
Thanks for the correction, Tim F.
I don’t deny northern racism, and in fact the corrected quote goes some way towards explaining why the riots happened where they did. The danger of ‘closeness’ in the north was a lot more immediate than the danger of ‘bigness’ in the south. If affirmative action had been brought on with the imemdiacy and degree to which school and neighborhood desegregation had been, Atlanta would likely have burned.
not too many others have made such stupid remards on the Right.
Please don’t make arguments that you can’t back up. If you won’t accept Hannity or Coulter or Horowitz or Goldberg or Savage or on and on and on, and I know you won’t, consider the ads which superimposed Tom Daschle with Osama bin Laden and Max Cleland with Saddam Hussein. The subtle-as-a-nail-gun message: Democrats love terrorists and fascist dictators. That statement summed up the GOP message for the 2002 midterm elections. Until until Gillespie personally apologizes to Max Cleland your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
What did I say about the south?
TimF, speaking of not making arguments you can’t back up, can you show evidence of those ads which superimposed Max Cleland’s face with Saddam’s? I have seen the ad which Dems typically point to regarding Cleland, and the Dems are, well they’re lying their f*cking asses off when they say Cleland’s face was being superimposed with Saddam or Osama. Maybe you have a different ad in mind that I am not aware of.. Please link, since you’re talking about arguments not being backed up and all
The ad I saw most definitely did not superimpose or morph Cleland into Saddam or Osama, nor did it say he supported them. It said something like the US is facing terrorist threats and Cleland is voting against a homeland security bill co-sponsored by fellow Georgian Zell Miller.. of course, Cleland was voting against this security legislation as a sop to unions
But leftists who never even saw the ad were told to spread the word that Cleland’s mug was being superimposed with saddam and osama. And I think that’s what we’re still seeing today
I gave comments from Dem Party leaders. You gave me talk show types. ‘Nuff said.
Max Cleland’s complaints are nonsense, IMO. Tough politics but not below the belt.
I am not familiar with the Daschle advertisements you describe. Were they Republican Party ads?
I said I was using region as a proxy for party affiliation. Please keep up.
Birkel, you’re right, I did go back to Gingrich, mostly because it’s the easiest and most obvious example (i.e. you don’t have to divine the conclusion from watching his behavior and listening to his speeches–it’s actually right there in black and white in the playbook), and also because it set the template for what’s going on today (Karl Rove has certainly mastered the “go negative early and often, and don’t let up” strategy). Gingrich’s playbook is easy shorthand for attack politics.
For more recent examples, there’s Santorum, of course. Also Bill Frist and his patently absurd “being for the fillibuster means you hate Christians” bullshit. There’s…well…just about every fervent Bush supporter–including those in government–claiming those who voice dissension regarding Iraq are traitorous, or at the very least “comforting and siding with the terrorists.” There’s just about anything Dick Cheney has to say to or about non-Republicans.
And that’s just people in government. Let’s not even get into the type of shit that gets spewed on far-right blogs, talk shows, etc.
Note that this is not to say that Republicans are worse than Democrats when it comes to name-calling. My point is that attacks are hard and steady from both sides of the aisle, in part because of how polarizing Bush is with his “my way or I’ll stomp you” approach.
I would like to see the nutters on both sides quit the name-calling and go back to the fringes where they belong so the rational thinkers on the left and the right can get back to trying to improve the country and the world. Of course, I’d also like a Lamborghini.
The point isn’t that anybody used fancy computer technology to turn Daschle into Saddam or any such silliness. The point is that, like Horowitz later did with his “follow the network” publicity stunt, putting their pictures next to one another sends a certain sort of message. The Daschle/Osama ad was pretty similar to the Cleland/Saddam ad. In both cases, the GOP message boiled down to, “Democrats love terrorists and fascist dictators.”
Sure, you can make whatever technical excuses you want. They didn’t actually do a Terminator 2-type morph or anything. Now think about the climate of the time. Claiming that the other side loves the guys who blew up the WTC is arguably a lot worse than any Santorum Hitler reference. That in a nutshell was your GOP platform for 2002. Howrd Dean has said nothing nearly as revolting.
Darrell–you’re right, the ad doesn’t superimpose Cleland over Osama. It simply presents Cleland as a continuation of the lineage Osama. Those are the visuals of the ad. Picture of Osama. Picture of Cleland. The viewer is being guided to the conclusion that–in the binary mode of thinking that has turned into a cancer of this nation–by not signing on heartily to a very questionable bill, Cleland was choosing to cast his lot with Osama. Not 100 percent backing a Republican initiative? Then you’re with the terrorists.
Although, sometimes I still wish Howard Dean would shut up. No question that he’s a loose cannon.
In general “sees” has a point. I didn’t bring up the recent demagoguery about filibusterers being anti-religion because it really does seem to me part of the usual DC noise. Since Gingrich (who, be honest, was a walking molotov cocktail) it’s the 2002 elections that really irk me. People were really scared and disoriented in those days and I continue to believe that Republican efforts to manipulate that fear went way over the line.
So you demonize religious people instead.
Double standard anyone?
Under one single standard one can respect conservative Christians while demonizing the religious right.
I said I WORKED at Harvard. I wasn’t a student. Please slow down. :) Actually I figured thats what you meant but didn’t want to just make assumptions. Especially the assumption that all southerners are republicans and the northerners are dems. I don’t speak for northerners or Bostonians, just giving my opinion based on the people I’ve met and associated with in my life.
>In 1996 Perkins paid former Ku >Klux Klan Grand Wizard David >Duke $82,500 for his mailing >list.
This is not news to black voters.
I am sure it is comforting to some to think we dispise the Republican party because of welfare or Affirmative Action, but really it’s about things like this.
And it precisely because people like Perkins and Frist slobber all over blacks like Alan Keyes that they are dismissed as the house negroes they are.
From what you’ve written I assume that’s self-mockery.
Just keep backing away slowly from your unsupported charges. Slowly. Slowly…
Howard Dean said both the following:
1) I hate Republicans.
2) Republicans are the white Christian party.
Do the math. But then I’m sure Republicans’ claims that some high ranking Dem officials hate Christians is just bunk. Right?
A limited subsample, to be sure.
So Justice Thomas and Sec.State Rice are also “house negroes”? (a racist comment made by dark skinned blacks against lighter skinned blacks) I see.
I would ask in which field you work but that would probably come across wrong. So instead I’ll just call you the bigot that you are.
It seems to me that to some on the left, for blacks to simply be conservative is an act of selling out, of sucking up to The Man. When you talk about despising the Republican party because of some of the loathsome figures who find a home in it, it makes sense in a way that blacks who are willing to share a political party with the likes of Perkins would be seen this way, though I think this is profoundly unfair to them (not that you asked).
Genuine question here, if I may. I am not trying to win or advance any argument in asking this. To you, are there any black conservatives (in the political sense) who would not qualify for your epithet above?
Gad! Bringing up Dr. Amb. Alan Keyes. A nutjob, but a geyser of wisdom compared to, oh, say Maxine Waters or Cyn McKinney.
Glass houses, fellas. Let’s drop rocks.
Alan Keyes may be a lot of things, but he is no ‘house nigger.’
IN fact, although I agree with him on very little, every time I have heard him speak it has been worth my time. The guy may have views far outside the mainstream, but he is intelligent and interesting.
The miscreant didn’t use “that word.” He said “negroes.” In a sensitive, outreach kind of way.
Thomas is against affirmative action yet he is the poster child for it. That’s a pretty decent reason to have a problem with Thomas.
Condi Rice has blood on her hands from 9/11 and the Iraq war. Her willingness to kiss up to the boss to the benefit of her career rather than doing her job certainly leaves her open to criticism.
Colin Powell, on the other hand, benefited from Affirmative Action and wants it to be available for others. He also, at least until he argued for the Iraq war, maintained at least the image of being an independent thinker. Not surprisingly, he escapes a lot of the criticism of the other two.
“Condi Rice has blood on her hands from 9/11 and the Iraq war.”
Objection! Assumes we all agree that 9/11 was principally this admin’s fault, and that the Iraq war was wrong.
“Her willingness to kiss up to the boss to the benefit of her career rather than doing her job.”
Or maybe–just maybe–she agrees with him much of the time, and he with her much of the rest of the time; and this is why he chose her early on as his principal foreign policy advisor, and why he’s kept her close, and she’s stayed on and moved up.
Gad, that’s just really insulting.
Perhaps Thomas benefitted from AA but would’ve done quite well with or without it.
In fact, the argument that there’s a stigma caused by AA, whether or not somebody needs it, is one of the arguments AGAINST AA. It means that even people who succeed on their own merits (Gen. Powell, Sec. Rice or Justice Thomas, IMO) are slighted by the likes of you. And I daresay you’re much less accomplished than any of the three I’ve listed, as am I to date.
I’ll call you a bigot too, as the definition applies.
The 9/11 report shows pretty conclusively that this administration ignored literally dozens of warnings. I mean these guys DID NOTHING. Condi was the National Security Advisor. There’s no evidence that she pushed Bush to address the terrorism issue.
As to Iraq, Condi was the one who claimed that a mushroom cloud was just around the corner. Certainly the Downing Street memo is just one more data point that this Administration was going to war with Iraq regardless of whether there was a reason to do so. Condi was certainly on board with that.
Thomas was one of the youngest and least qualified nominees in the past 40 years. I hope you’re not seriously claiming that Thomas was the best qualified nominee Bush could have made.
I’m always amused when some right-winger calls someone a bigot because they challenge the credentials of a minority person. Holding minorities to the same standards as others is a rather odd definition of a bigot, don’t you think?
“I mean these guys DID NOTHING.”
I’ll assume you’d have supported them if they’d reversed the Clinton policy of, well, doing nothing, and gone out on the warpath against al Qaeda. I’ll assume you would not be questioning, after the Afghan war (which, remember, occurred without the provocation of 9/11), their good faith, and whether the war had really been necessary. With the benefit of hindsight and plenty of time to think it over, of course.
“Condi was the one who claimed that a mushroom cloud was just around the corner.” No, she didn’t. She said the administration did not want to wait until the proof of the threat was a mushroom cloud–the only “smoking gun” that would have convinced the skeptics then, or the BushLied! critics now.
The Duelfer report, linking the dormant but not extinct weapons programs to corruption at the UN and Saddam’s hope to wait out the sanctions then start anew? Who cares, there was still no threat. Never was gonna be.
Oh yeah. I’m convinced. If Bush had announced a preemptive war against the Taliban, you’d have stood foursquare with him, right?
And by the way, you want to hold minorities to the same standards as others, but you don’t seem to want to let them hold the same opinions as others. Either that or you do, as long as those opinions are liberal.
Um, the Clinton Administration was addressing the terrorism issue, at least to the extent they could given all the cries of wag the dog. Key people warned the Bushies that terrorism was going to be the major foreign policy they would have to deal with. But, as the 9/11 report shows, the Bushies chose not to address it. They weren’t interested.
Remember the “historical” document Condi talked about that turned out not to be historical at all? We know how concerned Bush was – he was vacationing in Crawford and remained there. And how about all the warnings the FAA received? Why did the Bushies do nothing about that? Why were the air traffic controllers not warned? Why was there no plan in place to immediately shut down the national air space should such an attack take place? Why did it take several hours for that to happen?
Yes, I would have supported their improving homeland security (I’m still modestly hopeful that they will) and, at the very least, having a plan in place in the event that somebody did choose to use an airplane as a weapon, something that was anticipated as a possibility for the Atlanta Olympics, which occurred under Clinton’s watch.
Did the Duelfer report claim that there were WMD that could be immediately used against the US? That was, after all, the argument the Bushies made repeatedly.
Oh, I see. Condi was arguing that we should attack anyone who could possibly attack us with a nuclear weapon. So why didn’t we attack North Korea? Condi’s goal was to scare the American people into believing that Hussein, the mad man, was perfectly capable of delivering a nuclear weapon in the near term. If not, then what was she trying to accomplish? If they weren’t arguing there was an immediate threat, why didn’t they let the weapons inspectors continue to do their job? And, as it turns out, the skeptics were right.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing in your last paragraph. Certainly they have the right to hold whatever opinions they want. And if I disagree with those opinions, I will challenge them just as I would with a white conservative. What’s wrong with a consistent standard? Why should I not challenge somebody’s opinions just because they’re held by a minority? Isn’t that discrimination?
So has the point–that the GOP has inherited the intolerance of the solid Democratic South–been entirely dissembled away here?
I called you a bigot because you questioned Justice Thomas’ qualifications because he’s a conservative black man. What qualifications have you to challenge Justice Thomas?
What evidence have you that he was unqualified for the Bench?
Enlighten John Cole’s readers.
Thomas spent most of his career as a government bureaucrat, including running the EEOC. I don’t care what color his skin is, that’s hardly a useful stepping stone to a supreme court position.
He was, what, 42 when he was nominated? Most justices are 10-20 years older when they are nominated.
Compare Thomas’s background with Thurgood Marshall, who contributed substantially to the body of law pertaining to civil rights. Marshall was a true pioneer in the area of civil rights having played a key role in some of the landmark cases. Are you trying to claim that Thomas possessed the same experience and standing as Marshall????
Why am I bigot for expecting individuals with much stronger experience for the highest court in the land? Are you saying that just because he’s black, he should slide in with lesser qualifications?
Now who’s the bigot?
>Alan Keyes may be a lot of >things, but he is no ‘house >nigger.’
Typical to read what wasn’t written.
>So Justice Thomas and Sec.State >Rice are also “house negroes”?
Keyes yes. Rice and Thomas no.
Alan Keyes is a pet of the Southern Racialists of the Republican party and as such is a House Negro.
>(a racist comment made by dark >skinned blacks
I wouldn’t know. I’m one of those dark skinned blacks.
The Republicans did not need to inherit rascism from Democrats. They had it quite homegrown.
William F. Buckley circa 1957
“The central question that emerges . . . is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes
I followed your link to one of the lefty sites and then followed another link and another, and so on. Ran into this very interesting blog from dailykos that plays right into some of the comments here about Gingrich’s playbook. Here’s the address if anyone’s interested:
I followed your link to one of the lefty sites and then followed another link and another, and so on. Ran into this very interesting blog from dailykos that plays right into some of the comments here about Gingrich’s playbook. Here’s the address if anyone’s interested:
Joseph Story was 32 when he was elevated to the Supreme Court.
I’ll bet he was too young.
Are you suggesting that Thomas is of the same caliber as Story?
Well, I’ll suggest he’s of greater caliber than Souter and Ginsberg.
Now, how do we “caliber-ate” our assessments? Harry Reid shows us how not to.
“at least to the extent they could given all the cries of wag the dog.”
Oh please. If a politician needs to cite his terribly unfair treatment at the hands of his opponents to justify not doing enough, then he’s not a leader.
The USS Cole was bombed by al Qaeda and Clinton did nothing! No response at all. But his apologists say, well, it was too late in his term, the Republicans wouldn’t have supported him, etc.
Bush saw a threat in Iraq. He could have let it gestate, on the grounds that people like you would give him pure hell for doing something about it, but instead he gambled his reelection on confronting that threat. You may think that was a bad call, but it took guts.
“Did the Duelfer report claim that there were WMD that could be immediately used against the US? That was, after all, the argument the Bushies made repeatedly.”
Ye gods this is tiresome. The argument they made repeatedly was that if you waited until the threat became imminent, it would then most likely be too late to stop.
What is so freakin’ hard to understand about that? You may think this is the wrong way to go, but why not argue with what was actually said?
A key plank in the Iraq-war-was-unnecessary argument is that there never was going to be much of a threat. The Duelfer report would strongly hint otherwise.
The question isn’t whether he’s doing a good job currently on the court. That certainly will depend on one’s political stance. The question is whether Thomas was appointed to the court through affirmative action. Given his meager record as a government bureaucrat, I would argue yes.
>The question is whether Thomas >was appointed to the court >through affirmative action.
It seems like a conclusion from the Univeristy of Duh.
A black liberal retires from the court and the guy to replace him just happens to be black.
Hello Captain Obvious here.
Way to whack that strawman, Sojourner. I give up.
So are you an opponent of AA, as now being practiced?
Good on ya!
Nope. But I do have a problem with people who benefit greatly from AA, but then decide that other people should not. This is what Thomas is doing.
Well, “AA, as now being practiced” is a wrong. An evil even. The principled stand is to end it.
If Thomas benefitted “greatly,” then he likely had very much of what it takes to have “made it” without that regime. Too bad he’s had to suffer from suspicion that he doesn’t *because* of AA.
A question: If they did not mean an imminent or near-term threat, what time frame were they talking about?
What background and experience did Thomas bring to the court that made him more deserving than others?
Funny, you seem to feel Thomas’ main or sole qualification was via AA–lawyering while black.
Well, that black’s qualifications seem to surpasses those of White.
How interesting that you prefer a government bureaucrat to someone who actually practiced the law.
How little you know, Soj:
Familiarity is supposed to breed contempt. But what is *your* reason?
I already saw this. Basically, White was a practicing attorney prior to joining the court.
So my question still applies.
Oh, you forgot to mention this:
“[He} then in May 1961 proceeded to lead 400 federal marshals into Selma, Ala., as an assistant attorney general under Robert F. Kennedy to protect against the very real threat of violence during the civil rights marches. For those who witnessed firsthand the tensions at the time, this took real courage.”
I was mistaken. White did much more than serve as a practicing attorney.
You’re right: your bad. Thomas was much more than a practicing attorney. After his years of practice, Thomas was bureaucrat like White for some years in the 80s, and then a year or two as a Federal judge.
Advantage Thomas. Because *my* bad was not copying the link I intended; rather, I posted the old one. This is the addy: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/legal_entity/106/background intended @ 6:04 p.m.
None of this is to dismiss White, who was about as decent a Democratic nominee as I could ever hope for, and far superior to such GOP nominated ciphers as Warren, Brennan, Souter and Kennedy.
But Thomas needs no apology. Sojourner just needs substantial grounds for criticism, and “lack of experiece” just isn’t cutting it.
I think your problem with him is cognitive dissonance: “conservatism while black.”
Thanks for the link. It confirms exactly what I was saying. He spent the bulk of his time serving in such positions as the EEOC and Civil Rights during the Reagan and Bush administrations. It’s difficult to imagine two less important positions during that timeframe.
Yep, the EEOC is quite the jumping off point. I’m surprised more people don’t follow that path rather than doing something less legalistic like deputy attorney general for the US.
It has nothing to do with race. That’s just a cheap shot based on a losing hand. Experience don’t matter as long as he thinks the “right” way.
The greater point was Thomas’s superior experience in both depth* and breadth, in a more compressed career than my chosen example: Byron White.
But thanks for playing; you held up your end, but were handicapped by the group-think propaganda that has marinated the left over the past 15 years.
* Except that Thomas was only briefly practiced law in the private sector, while White did decades. In the other strata, it’s advantage, Thomas.