Democrats & Liberals Archives

You Can't Expect People Not to Notice.

What were they thinking?

This is where your GOP is heading, my friends on the right. Bit by bit, in order to satisfy a fringe that the leaders of the party know will never thinking of voting for Democrats, the GOP is letting people make the decisions who are everything the Liberals would accuse them of, and you would deny you are.

As hard of a time as I give folks on the Right, I don't believe the vast majority are racists. I think most of them are pretty modern in their thinking as a matter of fact, perhaps more modern than they'll admit to themselves at times

But their leadership, in many cases, cannot be viewed so charitably, and they've led their party down a course that practically forces these decent, fair-minded folks to look the other way in the name of opposing... well, people like me.

The term that some on the far right would throw back at me is political correctness. They would accuse me of ignoring things about people because of their skin color, because I want to engage in a vain battle to remove everything offensive from the English language, because I want to control everybody's thinking like the authors of Newspeak in 1984. That's what they want you to fear, really.

Truth is, I know you really can't remove everything offensive from the English language. As a writer, and somebody who's studied a great deal of dialogue in books and movies, I've found that you can be pretty offensive even if you don't use offensive terms. I've seen euphemism chase euphemism. You used to call somebody retarded as a nice way of saying they were a moron, a moron as a clinical way of saying they're stupid. Now you can't call people retarded, because that term, too, has taken on negative connotations. I'm not sure, though, you could properly describe somebody whose condition renders their intelligence low with a term that couldn't take on that meaning, precisely because it's what you mean behind everything that counts, and who you say it to. Political correctness of that sort is doomed to failure. There are some people who can say "African-American" and "Black" in such a way that you know full well they mean "n*****" (I censor it to avoid site blockers, no other reason).

But there's something beyond political correctness at work here, really. A while back somebody did a genetic study of people all over the world, looking for the biological basis for race. They found none, really. They found that your genetic relatedness to another person had more to do with proximity than appearance. A black man in South Africa might look vaguely like an Ethiopian, but the Ethiopian might have more in common genetically with the Arabs next door, despite appearances. Same thing for a Italian, vs. somebody from the Caucasus. Looking similar doesn't make you such under the skin. That's more a case of what we call reproductive selection: if you looked similar enough to match some idea of good looks, your other genetics were irrelevant.

Heck, racial categories as we understand them are pretty new. But the prejudice against others? That's nothing new.

There have always been those who will suppress another language in favor of their own, who will look at somebody who looks different and pass judgment on them. It's difficult, in fact, for people not to treat somebody different who is outside their norms. We adopt an idea of what is right and normal based on what we see around us.

The point, I would think, would be to recognize that there is no other basis or justification for racial prejudice. Which is not to say that people should simply get over it. We have long stuffed people away in certain parts of town, denied them certain jobs, allowed unfair advantages to people over them. Our forebears, whether we care to admit it or not, put them in their position, not purely their own merit or that of their forebears. Some say we gave them everything, but that's a vicious lie. We stole everything from many of the blacks who came over on those ships, sometimes even their very lives. For about three quarters to eighty percent of our history, we've deliberately stolen opportunity and an equal place at the table from them. Those who did succeed, often had to succeed against a current of unreasonable hatred and a hypocritical double standard that expects calm and skill from them that we didn't expect from ourselves, to even be recognized and not lumped in with others.

Racial prejudice isn't merely politically incorrect, it's just wrong.

Which brings me to my point: too many cloak their prejudice in the aura of truth-telling political incorrectness. It's a travesty of straight talk. Folks say ignorant, selfish things, but don't have the guts to absorb the contempt they know is coming for saying those things. So they accuse us of being intolerant of an opinion that has too much truth for us to bear.

Well, let's try some truth: first generation immigrants often find difficulty with their new country's language. Their children find it easier, and are often bilingual. Their grandchildren, typically, speak the language of the nation of their birth. There is no need to force the language, no use to it. It won't make those who show up better at speaking it, nor is it necessary to make English speakers of those who descend from them.

More truth: this is a nation of immigrants, including the ancestors of many of the folks who talk smack about new immigrants. Yes, they will change the country from how you like it with their influences. No, that's not bad. Yes, our country's the sum product of generations of different influences, from the Basques to the Vietnamese. I work next to immigrants from at least three countries, and they're all hard working, capable people.

Speaking of that, my workplace also features folks of many different colors. We cover the spectrum. I've seen no difference on that basis either.

And while we're at it, I don't notice any difference between the working ability of women and men either.

Long story short, a lot of what people say about folks of different races, creeds, orientations, etc. is just flat wrong.

And you know what? You insult those people, alienate them when you indulge those who say those things. It gets noticed. It gets pointed out to people, and even if they're inclined to agree with you on other matters, it does introduce a conflict with those people about allying with you.

If you're Arab or Muslim, and have spent the last decade listening to what those "tell-it-like-it-is" folks have been saying about your faith, you've heard them more or less saying that you're suspect by nature. Are you still eager to vote with Republicans?

If you're Hispanic, why vote for Republicans? They'd make the language many people you know speak a second class language, write laws that makes people who look like you bigger targets for official harassment. They act like a bunch of people coming in to seek low-wage work is tantamount to a military invasion.

If you're black, why vote for Republicans? For the fact that you often vote liberally, they patronize you as dupes and even now "slaves". They used racially specific prejudices as part of their campaign against anti-poverty measures, bringing up images of blacks as lazy mooches. When a fellow black man, Barack Obama, rose to the Presidency, you heard folks call him "uppity", saw folks pass around images with Watermelon patches in front of the White House. That's literally college-level racism. That's racism you don't use unless you're familiar enough with the old, corrosively prejudicial stuff to actually get it.

In the internet era, you might be able to look the other way, or hide from the implications, but others are going to hear about it, others are going to be told how offensive it is, even if they're not totally familiar with it. It will harm your party, and worse, you might be forced into the awkward situation of having to rationalize the quotes, the images, the mistakes and the malicious displays of prejudice. Having rationalized it, you might find yourself burdened with a pretty ugly position, one that runs counter to your more fair-minded nature. It's in the nature of many bigots to turn others to their opinions by scaring them with the possibility that they may be accused of being insufficiently loyal Americans, too politically correct, a communist or terrorist supporter for not taking their prejudicial opinion at face value as the truth. Peer pressure can be forceful in a party where people believe things so strongly. Not much is going to change that.

The question here is this: who do you consider your peer? Who do you consider your ally? If you have a choice between losing a moderate Republican or an independent as a supporter of your candidate, or losing some guy who's talking some pretty weird and disturbing things about Jews, who do you wave goodbye to?

If your choice is between a man who karate chops a black lady while calling her "n*****" and welcoming a similar black woman into the party, who do you chose?

The Republican Party has chosen to hang out with the wrong people, unfortunately, and its awkward, even hair-raising associations, and even more so the people they alienate on their behalf, has had a harmful long-term effect on the party.

It's time to cut some people loose.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at February 10, 2012 10:16 AM
Comments
Comment #336048

On the subject of the slave or plantation mentality I’m getting tired of hearing mainstream conservatives make those statements and not get publicly shamed for it. Even as some of our conservative readers here are reading this they’re scoffing at me for saying such a thing. I know this will be a surprise to white conservatives but just because black men like Allen West and Herman Cain say it that doesn’t make it any less faulty or less racist. Black men and women can believe white supremacist ideas as well as any black man or woman can.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 10, 2012 3:49 PM
Comment #336049

Rather, Black men and women can believe white supremacist ideas as well as any white man or woman can.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 10, 2012 3:52 PM
Comment #336053


IMO, racism is more prevalent among the blue collar and low wage workers and these are the voters that Republicans need to attract and hold on to.

‘The vast majority, not racist, forward thinking’

There is something to be said about a vast majority that has no problem voting for those who use racists language as a sales pitch.

I have heard the claim that the vast majority of Southern whites did not support the Jim Crow actions of the local and state governments they were voting into office on a regular basis.

When it comes to the conservative thought process, there is nothing new here to discuss. Multiculturalism has been their theme for most of history. In America’s past, Jews, Catholics (Italians, Irish), Pols, Slavs, etc., all have had their turn as the muck ups of American culture.


Posted by: jlw at February 10, 2012 7:07 PM
Comment #336058

Once again, Stephen Daugherty entertains us with the latest talking points of the left. He provided on link to the liberal web site “Little Green Apples”, but could have just added dailykos and rightwingwatch, and it would have saved him the time it took to copy and paste the latest socialist talking points:

“Anti-immigrant Rep. Steve King and racist Peter Brimelow have a little chat at CPAC”

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063637/-Anti-immigrant-Rep-Steve-King-and-racist-Peter-Brimelow-have-a-little-chat-at-CPAC?via=sidebar

“CPAC Set to Host White Nationalist Leader”

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cpac-set-host-white-nationalist-leader

SD, why don’t you try coming up with something original, instead of repeating the daily democrat talking points?

And correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it “yeller dog democrats” who were part of the Jim Crow movement in the South?

Posted by: Frank at February 10, 2012 9:57 PM
Comment #336060

“IMO, racism is more prevalent among the blue collar and low wage workers and these are the voters that Republicans need to attract and hold on to.”

jlw, are you talking about union workers?

Posted by: James at February 10, 2012 10:05 PM
Comment #336428

Frank-
So, it’s the “liberal talking points must be wrong” argument, right?

I think this pattern of saying that anything that might hurt or embarrass Republicans and Conservatives must be false is precisely what has so many well-meaning conservatives associating with such not so benevolent or benign folks like Pete Brimelow. Folks aren’t really taking a good, hard look at who the thought-leaders are, because they’ve been distracted by this supposed battle against the left-wing media.

Well, while the left-wing certainly uses this as a talking point, the question is, why? Is this merely a matter of interpretation? No, the controversial opinions are truly ascribable to them. Your problem is that multiple liberal sources have brought this inconvenient and uncomfortable fact up for discussion, something you apparently think we shouldn’t do.

Why? Factions and parties in America, by the design of the framers are supposed to keep each other honest, held accountable. If you throw an argument at me, and at its center is a nugget of truth, if I dismiss that nugget on account of it being a conservative talking point, then I’m wrong even if it is one.

So, talking point or not, the question is, is the claim true? You’ve offered no evidence otherwise, you just don’t like that we’ve brought it up.

As for Little Green Footballs, it’s not a liberal website, it’s a conservative website, but since it dissents from some of the Right’s orthodoxy, you’ve declared it Liberal.

That’s the funny thing. You have all these moderates and righties, whose views on the record are decidedly middle of the road, or even to the right of that, but when they stop drinking the GOP’s kool-aid, all of a sudden, they’re to the left of Lenin!

Funny how that works. It’s a very Stalinist way of going about things. But since you can’t shoot these people and bury them in lime, you’ve got a problem. It’s especially a problem if your critics have a point. If they do, then all your protests are merely a matter of self-delusion. You have a problem in your party and you’re not facing up to it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2012 10:33 AM
Comment #336429

jlw, when Jim Crow policies were introduced, it was the democratic party of the south that supported it. You, sir, are trying to change history. It was men like George Wallace (Democrat) and Robert Byrd (Democrat and clan member)who were the racists. It was southern democrats who would not support LBJ and civil rights and if it weren’t for Replicans supporting civil rights, it would not have passed wehen it did. It is these same democrat politicians today who are the racists; yet the left has the audacty to call anyone other than themselves racists. Perhaps instead of attacking the messenger instead of the message, one of you more intelligent liberals (if there is such a thing) could provide some racist quotes by conservativs:

“You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent.”
-Senator Joe Biden


Mahatma Gandhi “ran a gas station down in Saint Louis.”

-Senator Hillary Clinton


Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve’s ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve’s fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him.”

— Roger Clinton, the President’s brother on audiotape


“You’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”
— Fritz Hollings (D, S.C.)

“Is you their black-haired answer-mammy who be smart? Does they like how you shine their shoes, Condoleezza? Or the way you wash and park the whitey’s cars?”

— Left-wing radio host Neil Rogers

Blacks and Hispanics are “too busy eating watermelons and tacos” to learn how to read and write.” — Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax


Black on Black

“In the days of slavery, there were those slaves who lived on the plantation and [there] were those slaves that lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master … exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. Colin Powell’s committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.”
— Harry Belafonte

“Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They’d rather take pictures with black children than feed them.” — Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s Campaign Manager for the 2000 election

(On Clarence Thomas) “A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom.” — Spike Lee

“He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”

— California State Senator Diane Watson’s on Ward Connerly’s interracial marriage

Comments From The Past

“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

— Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate”, in a letter written in 1944, after he quit the KKK.


“I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state …. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia …. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va …. I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities.”

— Former Klansman and current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate”, in a letter written in 1946, after he quit the KKK.

“These laws [segregation] are still constitutional and I promise you that until they are removed from the ordinance books of Birmingham and the statute books of Alabama, they will be enforced in Birmingham to the utmost of my ability and by all lawful means.”

— Democrat Bull Connor (1957), Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, Alabama


“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

— Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler’s Book, “Inside The White House”

(On New York) “K*ketown.” — Harry Truman in a personal letter


“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America.”

-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess


“There’s some people who’ve gone over the state and said, ‘Well, George Wallace has talked too strong about segregation.’ Now let me ask you this: how in the name of common sense can you be too strong about it? You’re either for it or you’re against it. There’s not any middle ground as I know of.” — Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace (1959)

On Jews

“You f*cking Jew b@stard.” — Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in “State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton” and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.

“The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes.” — Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002

“Now that nation called Israel, never has had any peace in forty years and she will never have any peace because there can never be any peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under his holy and righteous name.” — Louis Farrakhan who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002, 1984

‘Hymies.’ ‘Hymietown.’ — Jesse Jackson’s description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

“Jews — that’s J-E-W-S.” — Democratic state representative Bill McKinney on why his daughter Cynthia lost in 2002


On Whites

“I want to go up to the closest white person and say: ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.”

— Charles Barron, a New York city councilman at a reparations rally, 2002


“Civil rights laws were not passed to protect the rights of white men and do not apply to them.” — Mary Frances Berry, Chairwoman, US Commission on Civil Rights


(I) “will not let the white boys win in this election.”
— Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s Campaign Manager on the 2000 election

“The old white boys got taken fair and square.” — San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown after winning an election

“There are white n*ggers. I’ve seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time.” — Former Klansman and Current US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who is referred to by many Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate” in March of 2001

“The Medicaid system must have been developed by a white male slave owner. It pays for you to be pregnant and have a baby, but it won’t pay for much family planning.” — Jocelyn Elders

The white man is our mortal enemy, and we cannot accept him. I will fight to see that vicious beast go down into the lake of fire prepared for him from the beginning, that he never rise again to give any innocent black man, woman or child the hell that he has delighted in pouring on us for 400 years.” — Louis Farrakhan who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002, City College audience in New York

“There’s no great, white bigot; there’s just about 200 million little white bigots out there.” — USA Today columnist Julienne Malveaux

“We have lost to the white racist press and to the racist reactionary Jewish misleaders.” — Former Rep. Gus Savage (D-Illinois) after his defeat 1992

“White folks was in caves while we was building empires… We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.” — Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in “Democrats Do the Dumbest Things

“The white race is the cancer of human history.” — Susan Sontag

“Reparations are a really good way for white people to admit they’re wrong.” — Zack Webb, University Of Kentucky NAACP

http://hiphoprepublican.com/2006/08/top-racist-democrat-quotes_30.html

Posted by: Frank at February 11, 2012 10:55 AM
Comment #336430

Frank, you gotta love the democrats for trying to change history. If I came from the bigoted and racist background of the democratic party, I would try to blame someone else for being racist too. Great link, should be seen more often. The truth will set us free.

Posted by: Billinflorida at February 11, 2012 11:07 AM
Comment #336431

Your lengthy comments don’t change the fact tha your posts are nothing more han copying and pasting the daily liberal talking points. I have said this before and my links prove it. You copy everyone else’s ideas and try to make them you own, sorry…not very original. I wait with baited breath to see next “original” topic you write about.

Posted by: Frank at February 11, 2012 11:13 AM
Comment #336432

Frank,

It’s the old “these guys were morons so it’s OK for us to morons too” defence.

Before the ’60s you could throw a rock in virtually any direction and hit a racist, and frankly I don’t see where it has gotten much better.

“Your lengthy comments don’t change the fact tha your posts are nothing more han copying and pasting the daily liberal talking points.”

Where exactly has Stephen ever said his ideas were original?

For that matter when was the last time you posted something original yourself?


Billinflorida

“Frank, you gotta love the democrats for trying to change history.”

Yeah, like that’s original.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 11, 2012 11:42 AM
Comment #336433

Frank-
Oooooh, even more fallacious approaches to disputing the point!

There’s a difference between politicians making a few off color remarks, and two people who run white nationalist organizations being right there on stage with your Republican candidates for President.

Let’s say that every accusation you have there of racism is correct. Does that negate one scintilla of the facts I’ve presented? No.

Are there Democrats who are racist? Yes. Unfortunately so. But here’s a little secret: we’re not encouraging them. McKinney and her father aren’t being held up as admirable for what they said.

There’s a reason Al Sharpton is stuck these days doing news commentary, rather than being a big politician himself. There’s a reason Barack Obama is President, rather than the man who was talking about cutting off his nuts early on- that is, Jesse Jackson. There’s a reason people took President Obama seriously, when he dissociated himself from his pastor.

You want to talk about what white men said in the 1940s and 1950’s, fine. I don’t doubt Truman and others said things like that. It’s unsurprising. America wasn’t some racially enlightened paradise then, nor was Truman’s view all that extraordinary at the time. He’s a Missouran who was born in 1884.

What’s worse is that you’re trotting these views of Truman’s out now, more than half a century after the fact, as if he was representative of the Party. As for Byrd? You use Byrd’s words from 1946, and what sounds to me as a muddled, poor choice of words amidst rhetoric talking about how people shouldn’t hate others from more recently, likely to try and bracket everything he did as a legacy of racism.

Too bad you left out the apology, and the context

The interviewer, Tony Snow, was asking him about revelations that Jesse Jackson had an adulterous affair and a baby with a mistress, and Byrd’s response was that while Jackson wasn’t a man he was very fond of, everybody makes mistakes, and they can hang around you for a long time. He then cites his own KKK experience as an example of such a mistake. Now, what exactly could he be referring to with the “white n*****s” comment? One likely reference, being a Texan who’s heard from some saltier, more old fashioned people is that it’s simply another way of saying backwards, low class white folks. Another, less likely reference, would be more modern: it’s the source for the not-so-complementary “wigger” label, though the contempt usually is for a suburban kid who tries to appear tough by adopting a ridiculously over the top imitation of inner city gangsta clothing and language. Having referenced the CNN coverage of his apology, I think it’s the former, though the latter would make sense as part of an argument that white culture and black culture are being blended together.

Your source then treats comments by Harry Belafonte, Donna Brazile and Spike Lee as racist. Racially charged, yes, perhaps unfair, but not altogether racist.

Belafonte was saying that Republicans would love Colin Powell until he said the wrong thing. Lo and Behold, what did Rush Limbaugh say when Powell endorsed Obama? “It is entirely about race!” You have to wonder why you don’t see so many moderate Republican black folks around, why most of them you see adopt very far right points of view. Is that as much of a reaction against their own community, as anything else? Why do black Republicans of these kinds feel they have to reject their own community? Why don’t they make their peace with it?

Brazile was making a point about issues the black community faced, saying that while they might trot out these politicians who looked like them, they weren’t going to help with those issues. Before you say identifying a black community is racist in comparison to identifying a white community, let me put a stake in that argument: the plain fact is, we created that problem, we created that need for them to come together on each other’s behalf. When the problems created by that become a thing of the past, there will naturally be less interest in that.

Spike Lee is a product of that environment, so he’s not going to like somebody like Clarence Thomas, a man he perceived to be selling out that community, especially when he’s replacing the guy who rose to prominence arguing the winning side of the landmark Brown vs. The Board of Education case.

As far as Hillary’s supposed slur goes?

It’s unclear how the testimony of the nation’s most famously idiosyncratic exegete on questions of fact versus fiction was expected to clarify the issue. But in the end, it didn’t matter. Oppenheimer’s story began unraveling on its own. His principal source, Paul Fray, was an Arkansas political consultant who managed Bill Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 1974, and Fray’s claim that in a violent argument the night the returns came in, Hillary used a profanity-ridden anti-Semitic slur is clearly meant to be Oppenheimer’s smoking gun. He devotes an entire chapter — Hillary Uses the ‘J’ Word” — to the incident, determined that it should be seen not as isolated anomaly but as proof of entrenched prejudice lurking in the heart of a woman who would pass herself off to the world as unfalteringly P.C. ”Unfortunately,” Oppenheimer writes ominously, ”this was neither the first nor the last time Hillary would use such a slur.” By way of evidence, he cites a history of anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish sentiment in the Rodham family (Hillary’s mother had a Jewish stepfather she didn’t like) and a video produced by an anti-Clinton group in which Larry Patterson, the former Arkansas state trooper whose reports of Bill Clinton’s sexual peccadilloes were published in The American Spectator in 1994, testifies that Bill and Hillary used to hurl anti-Semitic slurs at each other. By now, Fray’s account looks highly suspect. His nearest Jewish ancestor, it turns out, was not his father, as Oppenheimer had it, but a paternal great-grandmother. More damning, though Fray and his wife have been enthusiastic contributors to Clinton books and articles over the years, they had, inexplicably, never mentioned this incident to any other reporter. Neil McDonald, a campaign worker Oppenheimer places in the room where the exchange allegedly took place, now says that he was actually just outside the door.

By the way, speaking of sources and links, you provide no link, and fail to extend to anybody any notification that this list you came up with… well, wasn’t a list you came up with. I find it interesting how you come up with the notion of a charge being a liberal talking point and unoriginal as being disqualifying offenses, yet you copy a list of quotes wholesale and verbatim off your fellow Republican’s site, a list most likely composed just for the rhetorical purposes you’re using them for now.

But you know, that’s a lot of non-effort for nothing. First, no matter what you say, you still have two white nationalists up there on a panel with your Presidential candidates. Not Democrats of the Jim Crow era saying racist things, especially a President who was dead in 1972 and out of office twenty years before. Not liberal blacks who are saying somewhat edgy things about race relations in politics. Not other unfortunate comments by some Democrats and some black leaders, which have failed to become mainstream conventional wisdom.

No, you have these people up there, representing what is supposed to be mainstream conservative thought NOW.

And the worst thing is, that running this kind of interference means that these people come to be more and more prominent in your party.

We deal with our problems. We don’t encourage racist comments or racist organizations to be part of our mainstream. We do our best to distance ourselves from those who evince strong prejudices, even sometimes from those who just say off-color things. People like you would use that tendency to try and wedge us away from holding you accountable on this, but the fact remains, your side is letting these guys into the big time, and seriously considering what they propose. Arizona’s legislation was not an accident.

Admit you have a problem, and deal with it. Stop blaming us for trying to keep you honest.

billinflorida-
Change history? Nope, we acknowledge the unsavory past of the Democratic Party, acknowledge it, and move beyond it. We act in practice as you claim to act in prinicple, when we challenge you.

It’s your side that tries to rewrite history, your side that tries to distract people from the significance of what your people are doing and saying right now.

Democrats had politicians saying things like Truman did years ago. But we turned our back on that, at great political cost, as a matter of fact. Republicans should do the same. They need to stop carrying on the legacy of the opponents of their founders. Republicans used to be pro-immigration, anti-discrimination. They used to reject the language and the policies of the South in that regard.

The time has come to put the past permanently to rest, not to rewrite history, but write a new chapter for America that is better than what came before.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2012 12:44 PM
Comment #336436

Stephen’s wording is definely slanted toward his idea that only republicans are bigots and racists. Must be a slow week for the left. This is one of those posts that there is nothing to respond to. Just some peandtic writing of someone wanting to stir the empty pot and giving the impression they are stewing some brew.

Your statement of who you work with holds no water with me. Eric Holder might like it, tho. Sometimes it is just fun to sit here and let someone make a fool of themselves, and they don’t need any help from me.

The funniest part is that the democrats have shown to want to keep ethnic groups under wraps.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at February 11, 2012 1:39 PM
Comment #336437

tom humes-

Are there Democrats who are racist? Yes. Unfortunately so. But here’s a little secret: we’re not encouraging them. McKinney and her father aren’t being held up as admirable for what they said.

That’s what I said. Perhaps you’re writing here what you would like to be true so you have the opponent you want to write against.

As for my statement of who I work with? God, you think I’m making it up? These are real people. But they’re not the only such people I’ve encountered in my work life.

As for this?

The funniest part is that the democrats have shown to want to keep ethnic groups under wraps.

That’s what the politicians and pundits on the right say, in efforts to pretend like those people are the victims of the Democrats. Only problem is, under our policies, these people have seen their prosperity and freedoms grow by leaps and bounds. They don’t work with us because they’re victims, they work with us because our policies give them the chance to prove themselves to be more than just that. We’re not giving them nominal rights, then telling them to sit down and shut up now they got them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2012 1:51 PM
Comment #336442

tom humes:

The funniest part is that the democrats have shown to want to keep ethnic groups under wraps.

This is stupid and nonsensical. It’s a fact that the Republican Party and Republican voters have a serious problem when it comes to race and prejudice. This can be easily demonstrated when one looks at the extremely low number of non-white members of Congress that Republicans elect.

Black Republicans who are presently representing in Congress:
1. Alan West
2. Tim Scott

Democrats clearly do not share this problem — a fact also demonstrated by the number of black representatives who have been elected and presently sitting in Congress:

1. John Conyers
2. Charlie Rangel
3. Ed Towns
4. John Lewis
5. Donald M. Payne
6. Maxine Waters
7. Sanford Bishop
8. Corrine Brown
9. Jim Clyburn
10. Alcee Hastings
11. Eddie Bernice Johnson
12. Bobby Rush
13. Robert C. Scott
14. Mel Watt
15. Bennie Thompson
16. Chaka Fattah
17. Sheila Jackson-Lee
18. Jesse Jackson Jr.
19. Elijah Cummings
20. Danny K. Davis
21. Gregory W. Meeks
22. Barbara Lee
23. William Lacy Clay Jr.
24. David Scott
25. G. K. Butterfield
26. Emanuel Cleaver
27. Al Green
28. Gwen Moore
29. Yvette D. Clarke
30. Keith Ellison
31. Hank Johnson
32. Laura Richardson
33. André Carson
35. Donna Edwards
36. Marcia Fudge
37. Karen Bass
38. Hansen Clarke
39. Cedric Richmond
40. Terri Sewell
41. Frederica Wilson,
And 2 Delegates:
42. Eleanor Holmes Norton
43. Donna Christian-Christensen

And, when it comes to Hispanic members of Congress the same also holds true, although to a lesser extent.

Republicans:

1. Marco Rubio
2. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
3. Mario Diaz-Balart
4. Francisco Canseco
5. Bill Flores
6. Jaime Herrera
7. David Rivera

Democrats:

1. Bob Menendez
2. José Serrano
3. Ed Pastor
4. Xavier Becerra
5. Luis Gutiérrez
6. Lucille Roybal-Allard
7. Nydia Velázquez
8. Silvestre Reyes
9. Rubén Hinojosa
10. Loretta Sanchez
11. Joe Baca
12. Charlie Gonzalez
13. Grace Napolitano
14 Raúl Grijalva
15. Linda Sánchez
16. Henry Cuellar
17. Albio Sires
18. Ben R. Luján

If you want to make comments about ethnic groups being kept under wraps, you’re going to have to acknowledge the sad fact that out of 535 members of Congress there are less than ten non-white Republican representatives who have been elected.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 11, 2012 3:33 PM
Comment #336445


Tom Humes, don’t you feel the least bit embarrassed that CPAC, a celebration of conservative values, would invite white supremacist nationalists to speak at their convention.

Is there a distinction to be made between a white supremacist nationalist and a Aryan supremacist nationalist?

Posted by: jlw at February 11, 2012 4:17 PM
Comment #336447

And who gerrymandered those districts? Cmon I’m not blind or stupid. Districts are set up to assure the representation of who they want. Some times it can’t be helped. In northers AZ there is a heavy poplulation of Native American. They are in one or two congressional districts. In southern AZ the Latino population is heavy in a district or two. In districts where there is not a preponderance of a group over another it should be representated as such.

Furthermore the white population is larger than the black population.

jlw
speak on. who are you talking about?

maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at February 11, 2012 4:31 PM
Comment #336453

tom humes

And who gerrymandered those districts? Cmon I’m not blind or stupid.

LOL — hilarious!
I really have to disagree.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 11, 2012 6:04 PM
Comment #336456

Adrienne

What happened to Raul Labrador?

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 11, 2012 6:19 PM
Comment #336457

tom humes-
I did not know that blacks were a minority. Thank you for clearing up my ignorance. You know, though, the funny thing is, when districts get written up by your compatriots with the intention of diluting their voting power.

Like, say, here in TX.

Blacks are underrepresented demographically in Congress, as only 9.6% are black, compared to 13%. Yes, the White population is a majority, but why does it have to have the only voice?

But if you want to complain about gerrymandering, then you explain to me why the last map that was pushed for redistricting was a)heavily manipulated by folks from up in Washington from the GOP (including Tom DeLay, the dancing fool who got convicted for laundering corporate money for the purpose), and b) why my district, represented by Ted “Sandwich Boards in front of the Court” Poe, stretches from Beaumont to the HOuston Suburbs where I live, pointedly avoiding the City of Houston. I mean, it’s called the District that Ate Houston, for crying out loud. THAT’s Gerrymandering, and my district isn’t the only example.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2012 6:23 PM
Comment #336464

Yes, kind of like the old Democrat districts that ran down a 100 mile stretch of interstate highway…

Posted by: Frank at February 11, 2012 8:31 PM
Comment #336474

Frank-
I’ll make you a deal: I’ll repudiate any such districts. In fact I already have. Then, that being the case, I’ll ask you to do no less than I already have.

The way I see it, it’s to no party’s benefit in the long run to have districts drawn up in that fashion. In fact, it shouldn’t be the parties in power that draw up such districts, it should be a non-partisan commission of some kind which just does the job according what are fair demographics and recognition of community needs.

You want me to be a hypocrite, but since you never ask my real point of view, but simply assume it, you have no possible way of knowing one way or another how I feel, much less catching me in a moment of hypocrisy.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2012 11:17 PM
Comment #336504

SD, until the Republicans gained the House after 2 years of Clinton; the country had been subject to over 40 years of Democrat districting. Yes, that’s just what we need, another non-partisan commission. Do you by chance know any non-partisan people to put on this commission. If I was in the minority in state governments, I would want a non-partisan commission too.

SD, I don’t want you to be a hypocrite…you are a hypocrite. It’s a done deal. I don’t ask you your point of view because I already know what it is. You are a liberal and you will spend your last breath defending radical socialist liberal politicians. You worship Obama and sing praises to every word uttered by him. Hypocrisy is defending Obama’s socialist goals and then saying you are a capitalist, a christian, and favor free interprise. If you’re gonna talk the talk then you must walk the walk… I personally don’t think you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Posted by: Frank at February 12, 2012 5:08 PM
Comment #336624

Frank-
I think safe districts do little good for either party, and they should be kept to a minimum. I believe people should be made to compete, and on real world terms, rather than simply assume that if they push the right buttons, people will re-elect them.

You can call me a hypocrite, if that’s the crutch you want to lean on. I don’t need to hope that people consider me calling you one will convince people I’ve won the argument.

I don’t have to be your kind of capitalist to be a capitalist. I don’t have to be your kind of Christian to be a Christian. I don’t have to favor a system that lets awful corruption overtake business across the board to support free enterprise.

I believe in the rule of law, and that business needs laws just like everybody else, because the cheapest thing to do, absent legal consequences, is to cheat people.

You operate with the naive hope that if we don’t get in the way of the people who do cheat, the system will automatically self-correct for them. In my thirty-two years of life, which coincides with much of that history of deregulation, I have seen the supposedly self-policing market repeatedly fail to nip these crises in the bud before something catastrophic happens. The crash of 2008 was only the latest and the greatest of those failures.

Truth is, people get competitive, and competition eats into the rock of moral conduct in society like frost breaks into stone on the mountains. If you don’t watch out, the need to keep up, much less stay ahead, leaves even the honest folks cutting corners and taking shortcuts.

You can continue to convince yourself that folks don’t adapt pathologically to the conditions in the market without the inhibition of the law, and I’ll push for the legislation that confronts that reality, thank you very much.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 14, 2012 9:38 PM
Post a comment