American's only black senator is a Republican

Conservatives and Tea Party activists are sometimes unfairly called racists when they don’t support Obama because they don’t like his policies. But they support conservative black candidates, like Allen West or Herman Cain. And they love South Carolina’s new Senator Tim Scott, now the only black senator in the United States. When he runs for reelection in 2014, will we suspect that people who vote against him are racist?

Liberals reserve a special dislike for black conservatives like Tim Scott. He breaks their mold. A black guy coming up from poverty is supposed to feel beholden to liberal masters for the beneficence. One that feels he can make it on his own hard work is not welcome. It upsets our liberal friends that a politician like Scott wins white conservative votes, voting for a black man because they like what he says. They are voting based on their ideals, not their racial identity. Liberals understand identity politics. Voting based on values is tougher for them to fathom.

I voted against Barack Obama for the same reason I voted against John Kerry in 2004; I did not like his policies. Race played no role. Conservatives support black candidates when they support conservative ideas and liberals vote against black candidates for the same reasons.

The other interesting variable is that the conservative governor of South Carolina who appointed Scott is herself the daughter of immigrants from India. It is pretty hard to get a more diverse couple of players and all this in the heart of the Confederacy. Conditions are changing; maybe so must liberal minds.

Posted by Christine & John at December 18, 2012 4:06 PM
Comment #359078

He’s not really black. He’s an Oreo, or perhaps an Uncle Tom. but he’s certainly not black. He’s a republican, which means, he’s not black:

“ESPN’s Rob Parker said Thursday morning on First Take that, as an African-American, he has a lot of questions about Griffin.

“My question is, and it’s just a straight, honest question: Is he a brother, or is he a cornball brother,” Parker said. “He’s not really. He’s black, he does his thing, but he’s not really down with the cause. He’s not one of us. He’s kind of black, but he’s not really like the kind of guy you really want to hang out with.”

Parker said he wants to know more about Griffin’s personal life before he can accept Griffin as authentically black.

“I want to find about him,” Parker said. “I don’t know because I keep hearing these things. We all know he has a white fiancee. Then there was all this talk about he’s a Republican, which there’s no information at all. I’m just trying to dig deeper into why he has an issue. Because we did find out with Tiger Woods, Tiger Woods was like, ‘I’ve got black skin, but don’t call me black.’ So people wondered about Tiger Woods.”

Posted by: Billinflorida at December 18, 2012 4:38 PM
Comment #359080

I find it quite amusing that while Democrats are criticized for using the race card, Republicans complain that blacks don’t immediately identify with their black candidates, as if its all a matter of racism.

While some individuals might have racial problems, I think the main problem is a political one, caused by years of offensive campaign rhetoric and policies seemingly aimed at balking the interests of the community itself.

Republicans identified black issues, for years, as counter to that of regular hard-working Americans. They portrayed them as parasites unwilling to work, all too eager to seek out handouts. They even went so far as to publish work saying that their lower test scores were an inevitable result of an inborn genetic legacy.

So, essentially, you’re saying “We misbehaved for years, used divisive rhetoric against you, but now that you find it suspicious that somebody like you would sympathize with us, we think you’re the racists.”

The common denominator seems to be the interests of the GOP. If divisive rhetoric about black people and their lifestyles serves you, it slides. If you need to be outraged that somebody couldn’t see past years of that to give a black GOP candidate an clean slate shot, you go on the warpath.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 18, 2012 4:55 PM
Comment #359087

Mr. Daugherty, are younot mistaking Democrat’s for Republicans? Wasn’t it Republicans who fought to free the slaves? Wasn’t it Republicans who demanded blacks have the right to vote? And wasn’t it Republicans who voted and passed LBJ’s civil rights? Wasn’t it Democrats like Robert Byrd who belonged to the Clan? Isn’t it Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton who hav made a career out of creating racism? I know you want to revise history Mr. Daugherty, but we can go back and look at the Democrats involvement in every low down and vile event that has taken place in the history of America.

It was Andrew Jackson (the father of the Democratic Party) who ordered Secretary of War Lewis Cass (also Democrat Preesidential candidate) to drive the Indian Nations along the Trail of Tears.

“United States Executive Order 9066 was a United States presidential executive order signed and issued during World War II by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942, authorizing the Secretary of War to prescribe certain areas as military zones. Eventually, EO 9066 cleared the way for the relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps.”

Shall we go on with the dark days in America’s history when the Democrat Party trampled on the rights of Americans?

Posted by: george at December 18, 2012 7:05 PM
Comment #359090


My point is that we vote based on our values, not on the race.

There is no such thing as an inauthentic black, white or anything else. We are what we are born. It is silly and very racist when people claim that someone is not a try whatever because of their outlook.

Is there such a thing as a “black issue.” NO there is not. If a black or white person wishes to associate with an issue, it becomes theirs. To identify an issue as a black issue if racist.

I believe in the free market, free choices, personal responsibility and individual initiative. I think that we Americans accomplish great things in voluntary association. Do you think this is a white or a black point of view. If you do, then you are racists, plain and simple.

Many Democrats are racist in this way. They really believe that there are black issues and white issues.

Well the days of your liberal plantation are numbered.

Sorry, Stephen, but this warmed over 60s rhetoric doesn’t really work anymore.

I have believed that we should judge people by the content of their characters, not the colors of their skins ever since I can recall having an opinion. If you disagree, you are just wrong and should understand your racist leanings.

Posted by: C&J at December 18, 2012 9:30 PM
Comment #359116

I could care less if Tim Scott is Black, White, or whatever. If he represents the good folks of South Carolina and not the Republican Party he should get reelected in 2013. If he represents the Republican Party and not the folks in South Carolina then he needs to get the boot.

Robert Griffin ain’t the only Black that doesn’t want to be called an African American. I have a Black brother-in-law that hates that term. He says that first of all he was born right here in the USA. Second, he’s never been to Africa.

Funny, all the segregation and race hatred here in the South was while the Democrats were the only party in every state South of the Mason Dixon Line.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 19, 2012 12:07 AM
Comment #359132

Ron Brown, I am black and I hate the trm African American too. Do we call those of English, Irish, Scotch, French, etc., by the same name, i.e. English Americans. It is meant to divide Americans.

By the way, Stephen will go on his rant about the Democrats of today, used to be southern Republicans and the Republicans of today, used to be southern Democrats. He actually believes that crap.

Posted by: Frank at December 19, 2012 9:08 AM
Comment #359133


First of all let’s not pretend conservatives overwhelmingly supported Cain. He never had much over 30% support overall in a primary. Had he won or come close that argument might work.

Allen West certainly was the favorite of TEA Party people in that he is completely crazy and unqualified for office so he had to be their guy. Even a black man like Allen West can get up there and repeat white supremacist ideas and plantation analogies to get elected in an election that deeply favored Republicans. But the Florida conservatives liked him so much they redistricted him into an election loss and early retirement.

There has been only 6 black Republicans in Congress (5 in the house, 1 in the Senate) in the last 100 years and Tim Scott and Allen West are two of them. Why is that exactly? African American Senators are very rare from either party of course. Senator Scott becomes only the 2nd ever and the first since 1979. That he was appointed, not elected, is telling. Maybe he’ll enjoy broad support and win election next time out. We’ll see.

Folks like Ron Brown want to skip the last 50 years of history and pretend the Republican Party is still the party of Lincoln. The Republican Party isn’t even still the party of Reagan. Parties change. Decades after the Southern Strategy the Republican Party has now grown completely impotent in it’s attempts to sway minority voters, many with conservative values, to support their candidates.

I don’t think most conservatives are racist by a long shot. Some are, but so are Democrats. I also don’t think every single TEA Party member is racist. But the opposition movement that spawned the coalition is so empty and hypocritical and false that racism is the only explanation that fits. Indeed, the movement was founded by folks like this. No, it’s not everyone, but the element exists. They’re not concerned about the US Constitution when they tell President Obama to go back to Kenya.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 19, 2012 9:16 AM
Comment #359134

Tim Scott, 2nd in 100 years, anyway, not 2nd ever.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 19, 2012 9:18 AM
Comment #359141

The question is not who was talking about “states rights”, “nullification”, and secession in 1861, it’s who is talking about such things now.

The Republicans made a deliberate play for the disaffected Southerners in the wake of the passage of the civil rights acts of the 1960s.

Robert Byrd reformed, changed, as did many other Democrats. Many of those who didn’t became Republicans, like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.

Democrats don’t have the most glorious history on race relations, but in recent decades, the party’s changed on that count, as the Republicans unfortunately have as well.

I know my history, and yours, and I have no illusions. It’s you who fails to realized that the tainted politics of dixie found a new home in the GOP, by way of Nixon’s Southern Strategy, which sought out George Wallace’s voters.

What is funny is that after years of exploiting racial tensions to lock up Southern White voters, your people are now trying to portray us as being tainted by prejudice, so you can paint yourself out of the corner your political strategy’s painted you into with virtually every minority group in America.

The truth is, the social groupings that help define racial communities will only loosen up over time, and it’s far too soon to expect blacks and hispanics not to see their politics in terms of cohesive communities, which many of them still dwell within thanks to the legacy of decades of previous policy. There are wrongs and social injustices so deep and profound that it takes a long time for their effects to go away.

Republicans are trying to guilt trip blacks and hispanics into voting for them, on the ground that they should not see politics in black and white terms, however your side defined itself with such hostility towards those just recovering from decades of racial segregation and disadvantage, that such attempts typically fall on deaf ears.

Ron Brown-
Like I told the other guy, I’m neither unaware of, nor in denial of my party’s history. I’m just not ignorant of where the Republicans took their party, either.

I don’t mind being called Irish-American, or German-American. Nor do I mind being called white or anglo, or just plain American. I don’t need “white pride” the way some poor fools do, because I don’t have a particular attachment to America as a society dominated by one race.

I have no particular attachment to political correctness. Black, African American, Negro, whatever you want to call yourself. If you want to just call yourself an American, fine by me. I try to be sensitive to that.

As for what I believe, I know my history. If people want to know whether to believe me, they can check that history. They don’t have to take my word for it.

Can you ever argue without trying to assassinate their character first?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 19, 2012 11:37 AM
Comment #359144

I’ll just cut to the chase so we can all move on to the next story and with our day. There are racist people from all walks of life. I’m not seeing any of them commenting thus far so can we move on? These racial discussions go in circles where one party blames another party for being racist. It’s childish.

Posted by: BZA at December 19, 2012 12:56 PM
Comment #359145

Stephen Daugherty; however I argue, it is based upon first listening to your claptrap.

Posted by: Frank at December 19, 2012 1:49 PM
Comment #359148

Frank you really need to find an outlet for your anger besides Stephen Daugherty.

Posted by: Jeff at December 19, 2012 3:43 PM
Comment #359150


“far too soon to expect blacks and hispanics not to see their politics in terms of cohesive communities …” when will MLK’s dream come true? Re Hispanics - there really is no such thing. An Argentine of German descent and a Mexican descended from the Astecs are both called Hispanics. They have nothing in common except the language they speak. in fact they will have a lot of trouble understanding each other in their “common language.” BTW, we also include people from Spain in that diverse group. Have you ever been to Barcelona and called their language Spanish?

Stephen, Adam et al

My point about race is that you are looking at the wrong part of causality. It is not race that matters; it is ideology, which is somewhat correlated with race and that is what confuses you.

Think of it in terms of this incomplete syllogism. Conservatives vote against those who support liberal policies – most black politicians support liberal policies – therefore conservatives vote against most black politicians.

You see that race is correlated by not cause.

We will see the same with Scott and others. Liberals vote against those who support conservative policies - Tim Scott supports conservative policies – therefore liberals will vote against Tim Scott.

Once again, race is not the cause, but happens to be a factor.

I think that people like Stephen are honestly confused, but I am nearly certain that some liberal commentators understand this difference but continue to play the race card because it frightens and rallies the cognitively or at least the statistically challenged.

You would not expect conservatives to vote often for liberals. Black politicians often are liberals. Liberals don’t vote for black conservatives.

When people look for “racist” patterns in these things, they can find them. But it is more or less like being able to find patterns in clouds or tea leaves. They are put there by the person looking for the patterns.

Posted by: C&J at December 19, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #359151

Stephen just happens to be one that Frank can’t run over with his asinine comments. Bullies are all the same, regardless of color or political choice. Right, Frank?

Posted by: jane doe at December 19, 2012 4:53 PM
Comment #359153


I don’t believe in picking on Stephen have defended him. But his habit of using terms like “your people” to stereotype whole groups and include the writer and moralizing tends to annoy even me.

Posted by: C&J at December 19, 2012 5:02 PM
Comment #359163

I believe that Mr. Daugherty has a bright future as he is intelligent and is a self-admitted hard worker. He has already overcome much adversity in his young life to his credit.

At age 72 I may know a little about how the thinking one has as a young man changes over time and with more experience. Stephen will change over time and perhaps become more moderate or even…”gasp”, somewhat conservative as he acquires more real-life experience.

I wish him well on his life’s journey.

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2012 8:12 PM
Comment #359164

Hear this today and thought I would pass it along. I don’t know the author.

“Give a politician an inch and they will soon become a ruler.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2012 8:14 PM
Comment #359165


Posted by: Royal Flush at December 19, 2012 8:15 PM
Comment #359166

Prenez soin de votre santé aujourd’hui. Perdre du poids abercrombie paris france contiennent
naturelle en utilisant des suppléments Mango africains.
Découvrez plus au sujet de la santé de divers avantages de perte de abercrombie paris horaire faite à et de l’Irvingia gabonensis (mangue africaine). Si vous convient, choisissez une qualité supérieure africaine Mango faite à partir des meilleurs Extrait Mango africaine.” Acheter auprès magasin hollister france pour leur
de bonne réputation, avec l’assurance d’une garantie de 90 l’argent aujourd’hui. Offre un coupon ou d’achat et de vrac et économisez.

Posted by: Abercrombie Deutschland at December 19, 2012 8:56 PM
Comment #359192
Democrats don’t have the most glorious history on race relations, but in recent decades, the party’s changed on that count

Yep, they figured that they can push through their racism by convincing the non-whites that they NEED them to get by, that they won’t be treated equally unless they are treated special. By changing their marketing they have duped an a large amount of people.

But, ask yourself this. If they really think that everyone is equal, why do they not insist that everyone be treated equally? Why do they insist on talking about race every change they get? Especially when they think that their facade is cracking?

That’s the real problem, the progressives don’t see race, they see power. And whatever it takes to obtain that power, no matter how racist it is, they will do it and figure out a way to make people think it’s a good thing.

They talk about groups of people and then apply labels to those groups. And people who are genuinely not racist can’t see the strings being pulled and follow suit.

If you want to be a true non-racist you have to abandon the group-think that the progressive and conservative views steadfastly hold on to in their attempt to control your lives. Become an individualist. Judge each individual on their own merits, not their race, not their sexual orientation, not anything that they don’t have any control over.

A government that wasn’t racist wouldn’t ask you to tell them what race you are just to interact with them. Do what good individualists do. Simply refuse to ever fill out the ‘race’ question on any piece of paper, ever. Realize that race is a construct of society that just doesn’t really exist. We are all descended from the same single person (the ‘real’ eve) as we have been able to determine from mitochondrial dna. Having black skin or yellow skin is no different from having black hair or yellow hair. It’s irrelevant and until we stop treating people as inferior and in need of ‘help’ based solely on the color of their skin instead of their need we are going to keep having these inane conversations.

Republicans, stop trying to ‘prove you aren’t racist’ by pointing out when you think you aren’t. Democrats, stop trying to ‘prove you aren’t racist’ by pointing out when you think you aren’t. Start just living a non-racist life, fully, and open your eyes to the attempts by the leadership to couch so many of today’s issues in the form of race. When you see it with open eyes, you will see the truth, that they are playing you for your vote and support.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 20, 2012 12:20 AM
Comment #359193

Just when did I every claim that the Republican Party is still the party of Lincoln? They’re a long way from it. As far as I’m concerned they’re just as racist as The Democrats.
The Republicans act like Black folks ain’t good enough for them. The Democrats think Black folks are to stupid to make it on their own. Both are racist attitudes. But the Republicans will at least acknowledge a successful Black person. The Democrats will vilify successful a Black person like they just committed treason.
The unfortunate fact is that racism knows no political, geographical, or racial boundaries. I mentioned earlier that I have a Black brother-in-law. I’ve known him for 47 years. We met in SARS training, and served in Vietnam together. He’s been my brother-in-law 39 of those years. There ain’t a racist bone in his body. His brother hates anyone that isn’t Black. I also know KKK members. And some of them ain’t as racist as some folks of races the hate.
While I was in the Air Force I served with a Black guy from Mississippi. We got along real good. A White guy from Illinois couldn’t stand the idea of a Black being on our crew. Fact is he was the best crew member I had.
Had another White guy from the North ask the Black guy how the two of us could get along as both of us was from the South and he was Black and I was White. The Black guy said he had to leave the South to find true prejudice attitudes.

A kind of humorous side note. The local leader of the KKK got kicked out a of the klan a few years back because his daughter married a Black man.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 20, 2012 12:23 AM
Comment #359198

Ron Brown: “Just when did I every claim that the Republican Party is still the party of Lincoln?”

I’m just pointing out that the Democratic Party is not and hasn’t been the party of segregation more than fifty years. Many folks use the past to imply the Democrats are the true racists now without mentioning the Southern Strategy. In fact I don’t know if I’ve ever heard a Republican say that phrase and own up to what the party did to regrow after Civil Rights. I can’t remember if you consider yourself a Republican or not. I shouldn’t have implied that is how you feel without knowing.

“The Republicans act like Black folks ain’t good enough for them. The Democrats think Black folks are to stupid to make it on their own. Both are racist attitudes.”

I don’t think that’s true at all. Republicans believe Democrats support handouts just because it buys them votes and black people only vote for Democrats because they are too stupid to leave the plantation and Democrats promise handouts. You see these ideas written here on Watchblog every other day. This is exactly what the GOP cried about after President Obama won a second term. And this is exactly the kind of race charged rhetoric that gets even racist conservatives to vote for a black man like Allen West.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 20, 2012 7:19 AM
Comment #359200

You must get up as early as I do.
I’m not a Republican, and never have been. When I was growing up my parents were Republicans, that was just about as rare as hens teeth in the South. But when I got old enough to make that decision I chose neither major party and stayed independent.
Can you explain what the ‘Southern Strategy’ is? Is this something you cooked up? Or do all liberals know about it? Your the first and only person I’ve ever heard us that term.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 20, 2012 8:02 AM
Comment #359201

If Republicans believe that Blacks are to stupid to leave the plantation why would they elect a Black Representative? In fact, why would they even let one run? To prove they don’t hate Black? That makes as much sense as Baptist joining the Catholic church to prove they don’t hate them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 20, 2012 8:13 AM
Comment #359206

First of all I know Tim and had dinner with him when he was an unknown running for Congress. Nice guy and very thoughtful. He will represent SC well.

In the late 80’s Tim would have been known as a conservative Democrat and not a Republican. In SC those don’t exist these days as we’ve become a one party State. Tim wanted to be in politics so he pretty much had no choice but to run as a Republican. Remember Alvin Greene? That’s actually a good image of the Democratic Party in SC and if you want to win an office you become an R.

There was lots of external pressure on Gov. Haley to appoint Tim (yes because he is black) and my feeling is she wouldn’t have done it without it. Nikki owes her existence to Jenny Sanford and that was her first choice I’m sure. But Tim is a good guy, he’s a fiscal conservative sort of like Fritz Hollings (without the baggage), he’s not into the social bickering, and will stay pretty much on debt and budget issues. That’s why the tea party folks like him.

Posted by: George in SC at December 20, 2012 10:40 AM
Comment #359207

Ron Brown: “Can you explain what the ‘Southern Strategy’ is?”

One part of the Southern Strategy was a shift in language national Republicans used that would resonate with Southern voters on a racial political level without turning off other Republicans at the same time. This is how the GOP regrew and realigned after Johnson signed civil rights. Here is a good article on the Southern Strategy. Here is Lee Atwater talking about it.

“If Republicans believe that Blacks are to stupid to leave the plantation why would they elect a Black Representative?”

Contrary to what C&J says, it’s not about ideology. There are plenty of proud, Democratic voting black conservatives. Republicans don’t want those folks. They generally support only black conservatives who have “left the plantation.” You’ll notice almost every well known black Republican uses those terms as a signal to his or her fellow Republicans that they agree the mass of black voters are misrepresented and enslaved by Democrats. Republicans see blacks as having been duped by Democratic promises that result instead in failed social policies that have held black Americans back.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at December 20, 2012 12:21 PM
Comment #359209

Gotta go with Rhinehold on this one. Racism and ideology are independent issues. One either is or is not a racist. If you have to explain why you are not then you probably are. Somewhere along the line you have done something that implied another human is inferior or you are superior in some manner due to skin color. It is not terribly complicated and can not be broken down into subgroups.

It certainly is not proper to imply that anyone is racist simply because they did not vote for a person of alternate race. It would be proper to say that some people would allow skin color to be a determining factor. That in itself does not explicitly imply that they are liberal or conservative. I think however that the right is seen in general as being more racist simply by way of action and agendas taken with regard to persons of non caucasian persuasion. One only needs to participate in any broad discussion on the merit of social responsibilities as a nation to draw a clear defining distinction of which ideological faction is or is not more racist.

Whether they are or not really is of little significance at this point in time. It is a real stigma that exists and it exists because they have done little or nothing to dispel the notion. I don’t believe it is a stigma that can be overcome over night. It will take time and more than a few token gestures to convince those who feel afflicted to accept their efforts as genuine. If the will to overcome that stigma is real then the effort must be steady and long term.

Posted by: Rickil at December 20, 2012 1:38 PM
Comment #359213

Yeah, no racism on the right. Really — none really to speak of. That’s why almost all the prominent blacks in government have to be appointed, rather than elected.

That’s why the Republican convention is a sea of white people — and no it wasn’t racism when a black camerawoman at the GOP convention got peanuts thrown at her while two white Republicans screamed: “This is what we feed animals!”

This or this or this? That’s not racism at all. This and this and this? That isn’t racism either.

White Republicans just LOVE black and brown people! Really.
In fact, they’re completely incapable of acknowledging any kind of racial identity!

Posted by: Adrienne at December 20, 2012 3:54 PM
Comment #359216


“In fact, they’re completely incapable of acknowledging any kind of racial identity!”

You are right. I do not acknowledge any racial identity. Race is an artificial concept. I choose to be what I am and do not define myself or others by inherited genetic conditions over which they have no control. That would be racist. Jim Crow and Apartheid laws were based on that racial identity you like so much. Your current ideas of racial identity were created by slavocrats and oppressors. There is no biological or objective basis for them. Many American “blacks” would be called “white” in Brazil. And many times the phenotypes do not match genotypes. We should give up this hateful idea of racial identity.


You make a good point about merit, but I come at it from a different direction. I have always (at least as far as I can recall) been committed to judging things, ideas or people on what they do, not what they are. I didn’t know that when I was a kid, but I was participating in a bigger philosophical debate on whether to emphasize behaviors or status.

I favor tests that indicate potential behaviors or abilities. I liked tests like SATs etc. I suppose this came from a combination of self-interest and ideals. I do believe we should judge by ability. But I was also good at such tests. I came from a poor background, so I was at first excluded because of that. I always took great pride in beating the “smart” or “cool” kids on these kinds of tests. In fact, the tests were invented for people just like me, poor but smart. To me, they represented the triumph of progressive merit over the forces of privilege and putting the fix in.

From my earliest memories, I thought it was very bad that people would throw away what I thought was objective merit in order to make the world blacker, browner, whiter or anything else. I was against such discrimination and I am still. Now I understand that there are other considerations. They tests do not capture everything, but they are better than many detractors like to say.

The problem with the tests was not that they produced poor results. On the contrary, the tests are excellent predictors of success in academia. The biggest problem is that they were not producing the results that were PC. So the civil rights lobby, allied with people who never liked the objective standards in the first place, set out to destroy the idea of merit.

My idea of getting ahead is simple and you can call it simple minded if you want. I think you just do it. You identify what you want and the ways to get there. I don’t care who you are.

I use what I call the “Gold’s Gym test”. If you have a 100lb weight, the test of your ability to pick it up is your ability to pick it up. It doesn’t matter how much time you spend in the gym, what you claim to have suffered or whether or not you got a free membership. Either you pick it up or you don’t. Many more things are like that than we like to admit.

Now let me back up one step. Not everything is amenable to an objective test. That is why we have the free market. It does a good job of sorting out varieties of abilities and desires. During racist times, it was distorted, sometimes directly by government in the form of laws; other times by force or threat of violence. This is government’s responsibility and it was a good thing to pass legislation to remove legal and threatening barriers.

I agreed with the civil rights movement when it was creating equal rights. I started to quote Martin Luther King that we should judge a person by the content of character not color of skin soon after he uttered those words, when I was still in Junior HS. This made me a bit of a radical in that time and place. But the movement went beyond that. It overshot the goal and instead of seeking equal rights moved into the fever swamps of quotas and affirmative action.

Today, I hold to the anti-racist idea that we should judge by the content of character. If I black person is best qualified for a job, I hire that person. If not, I don’t. I may have told you that I won accolades from a civil rights organization for hiring and promoting blacks. They were disappointed with me when I told them that I didn’t think about such things and hired the best I could find, who happened to be blacks. The next year, some of these same people gave me a hard time for not hiring a black manager who I thought was less qualified than the white man I hired. I told them exactly the same thing. This is the virtuous thing to do and there is no other way to be anti-racist.

So indeed many times I oppose the civil rights establishment because (the Jacksons and the Sharptons) they have taken a wrong turn. I oppose racism where I find it and I understand that the victims lobby will hate me for it. I revel in their hatred, since their praise would indicate I am doing the wrong thing.

Posted by: C&J at December 20, 2012 5:52 PM
Comment #359224

C&J how many of as children have the opportunity or social awareness to discern any distinguishable social or intellectual inequities that might exist between each other? For much of our early young lives the focus at least from an individual perspective is spent trying to establish exactly where we fit in with regard to pecking order. I will also go as far as to imply that the vast majority of us have no concept of why we fit into a certain slot, we just know that is where we belong. Probably because it is where we realize the least friction.

It seems to me that the whole concept of education at least during my childhood tenure was a process designed to distinguish the more motivated from the worker bees. I ended up being a worker bee, I think not because I was lacking intellectually, but because I lacked the motivation to excel as a result of being categorically defined at a time when I should have been poked, prodded and pushed to excel. In other words the result of being categorically defined destroyed any confidence I may have had to move beyond my worker bee status. Of course there were other circumstances involved such as parental involvement, or a strong manufacturing environment etc. in which one was either college bound or factory bound.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that most of us end up being a product of our environment simply because there is not the time, the money the will or the jobs in this country to afford everyone an equal opportunity at advanced success. A few will always escape that trap out of luck, sheer personal motivation or a determined mentor. But the fact remains that by and large there will always be more worker bees than queens and ones environment and social status will in most cases determine their place in society. Tests are great for general classifications but in the end they tend to be cold and end up letting a lot of potential slip through the cracks.

There are still stigmas and perceptions that exist around people of color and there is no doubt the whole is unfairly persecuted for the actions of a few. At least within certain segments and maybe even regions of this country. The right in general has made it no secret that they recognize and in many cases despise those afflicted with the stigmas that are largely the result of immediate environment and classification of ones worth at an early age. Lets be honest that attitude is very off putting and is bound to make anyone feel disadvantaged and second rate. Why in the world would any bottom feeder look to those who hold them in poor regard for leadership?

As a liberal worker bee, who is quite content and self sufficient at this point in my life I don’t view most less fortunate as dependent societal parasites, leeches or blood suckers, I don’t see them as a convenient political tool. They are fellow humans in need. Of which I am more than happy to do my part to help them through this rough patch in time. Liberal and conservative differences center largely around attitude. People in need will choose those who actually recognize and work to address their needs as opposed to those who view them in a cold analytical manner.

Posted by: Rickil at December 20, 2012 8:40 PM
Comment #359232

Thanks for the link.
So you agree with this here liberal columnist that just because the South votes Republican that we’re racist. States rights is a racist code. And that folks down here automatically think that Blacks are to stupid to leave the plantation. Well I’ve got news for you sonny boy. Just because a bunch of liberals want to believe that garbage doesn’t make it so.
It’s true that the South did oppose civil rights legislation. And it’s true that the South has gone Republican. And it’s true we still have our share of bigots. But that doesn’t mean that Blacks down here are still kept on the plantation.
Believe it or not Black folks work side by side with White folks for the same pay. Blacks have been elected to office in majority white areas running on the Democratic ticket. In facts Democrats can still get elected down here regardless of race. And folks that are in interracial marriages don’t get harassed near as much as the ones in other parts of the country. One liberal state out west comes to mind.
All of this in the ‘racist Republican South’. Why don’t ya come down here and check us out. You just might find out we’re not as racist as y’all think. You might even like like us.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee. If most folks on welfare ain’t leaching off the rest of us that work for our living, then why is that we have a 4th and 5th generation welfare class?
I’m not against helping anyone that needs a helping hand. And I will reach into my own pocket to help them. There have been several times that I have offered someone on welfare a job. Their answer usually goes along the line of: “Why should I go to work for you when I can draw welfare and your still paying me?”
Folks in need will take a helping hand and use it to improve their situation. Folks getting handouts so they don’t have to work will vote for the folks that enable them.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 20, 2012 11:12 PM
Comment #359237
We should give up this hateful idea of racial identity.

You’re preaching to the choir, Sparky. As ALL of you righties well know. But please, do go and tell it to all the loathsome and despicable racists that make up a large percentage of the Republican Party. They truly need to hear such pearls of wisdom in the worst way.

Case in point:
Mosque arsonist tells court: ‘I only know what I hear on Fox News’

Posted by: Adrienne at December 21, 2012 3:52 AM
Comment #359241


Most of us end up “worker bees”.

My point is that we created a system that gave people like me - those from poor backgrounds w/o contacts - a chance to excel based on intelligence and hard work. It gave that chance to many and it worked. It was one of the crown jewels of the earlier progressive movements.

It then was debauched into a quota system based on racist categories. Anyone who supported the MLK ideas of judging by content of character must be appalled by the explicit judging by skin color.

I believe that much of the current problem is indeed the result of racism, but it is historic and no ingrained.

My father told me on many occasions that I should not try very hard because all the good things were “reserved for rich kids”. He was wrong, but he believed it. Had I believed it, I would have remained in those unfortunate conditions I grew up in. I think the same goes for racism. People can find it if they look. Those that believe it stops them are stopped by it. The liberal ideas of quotas etc reinforce this error and the soft bigotry of low expectations keeps people down, angry and voting Democratic.


I oppose judging and acting based on race. I always have and always will. Of course I also oppose racially based violence. As you may recall, my own son was attacked by six black men and sent to the hospital unconscious because he was white and easily available. I don’t want this to happen to any body for any reason.

Posted by: C&J at December 21, 2012 5:11 AM
Comment #359243

Sounds to me like Linn is playing the blame game. I don’t get Fox News at home but some of my employees put it on the TV at work. I’ve never heard anyone on it when I’ve been around saying that all Muslims are killing Americans and trying to blow things up.
He’s most likely racist to start with but just won’t admit to it. So he blames others for his actions.

Sounds to me that the 45 beers were doing the thinking for him.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2012 8:36 AM
Comment #359249


Indeed, you have noticed the difference between conservatives and liberals. We conservatives say that someone should not do things like arson. Liberals excuse it by pointing to outside forces.


There is also the fact that being Muslim (or Hispanic, BTW) is not a racial category.

Posted by: C&J at December 21, 2012 12:19 PM
Comment #359250
They are fellow humans in need. Of which I am more than happy to do my part to help them through this rough patch in time. Liberal and conservative differences center largely around attitude. People in need will choose those who actually recognize and work to address their needs as opposed to those who view them in a cold analytical manner

No, you are more than happy to put a gun to other’s heads to make them to their part. If you just wanted to do what you could to help, there would be no need for laws forcing that charity.

The problem is NOT that some people want to help and others don’t, very few of us are actual sociopaths who have no comprehension of empathy. The problem is in how we choose to help. Many you would label as ‘appearing racist’ are working hard, behind the scenes, to actually help others, not just give them a few checks each year that they never have to think about because it never reaches them in the first place.

You are right though in that the problem is perception. Apparently, to not appear racist, you have to list out and display all of your ‘good deeds’ for all of these people, or not oppose having a gun put to your head to force you to help in a way you disagree with. Because, lord knows I have been called racist when I don’t even accept that races ‘exist’ and have put together several charities and spend a great deal of my time helping those who I am apparently ‘racist’ towards. Oh, and that I have some of that ‘race’ in my genes as well doesn’t seem to matter either.

The fact is, the narrative of the progressive, in order to fuel their lust for authoritarian power and diffuse their guilt for what their policies have wrought, is that just because I disagree with a policy I am therefore, ergo, a racist. QED.

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 21, 2012 12:29 PM
Comment #359256

Maybe Linn hates anyone that has a different religion than him. He wouldn’t be the first. And unfortunately he won’t be the last.
At any rate he is blaming someone else for his actions. That right there makes me believe he’s a liberal.
If I listened to folks telling me that a race or religion is bad and needs to be destroyed, and I went out on my own and killed some of these folks, the fault is strictly mine. No one else’s. The idiots promoting such nonsense didn’t send me out to do it. They are guilty of being stupid and promoting nonsense like that. But so far there ain’t any crime in that. And under the 1st amendment there shouldn’t be.

Of course your racist. How dare you disagree with the government forcibly confiscating your hard earned money and
giving it to lazy folks. Your also greedy.
It’s off to the reeducation camps for you buddy.

Posted by: Ron Brown at December 21, 2012 3:09 PM
Comment #359299

Rhinehold, First off I did not call, label or imply that anyone in particular is racist. We certainly can not deny that it exists. I think it would be very difficult to persuade many that the right as an ideology is less so than the left. If they are then many of their actions certainly do not reinforce that perception. I can also suggest that if everyone or even enough people, right and left each, did their proper share then their would be no need for a gun to anyones head.

Like yourself I don’t have to work to convince anyone that I am not racist because I simply am not. To be honest I have never been accused of being racist. Living among racists and having grown up in a family that is still racist my biggest problem is trying to explain to people why I am not. They are pretty sure I should have the same racial views as theirs. The result is that I generally am excluded from such conversations when they happen. I am the black sheep so to speak. They of course don’t see anything wrong with their views. After all it is only talk and we all know talk is only that. It is actions that matter and as long as they don’t say those words to the wrong person or act on them then it isn’t really racism.

At any rate the point I was trying to make is that perhaps some liberals or progressives or whatever see no problem with overlooking the abusers in favor of the greater good because that is who they are. It is how their personality works. My focus is less on insuring that I always get my fair share and am never used than it is on stepping up and giving a little more if that is what it takes. The way I see it is those truly in need, need people like me. People like me need people like you to help keep the abusers at a minimum lest I might get totally taken advantage of. I personally don’t think the amount of abusers come anywhere close to overpowering the truly less fortunate and needy. I also am not so closed minded that I believe there is no room for improvement. I however will not damn all because a few have learned how to game the system. They really aren’t much different than the wealthy who game the system everyday of their life at our expense. We tend to ignore them though because they have money. We all know having money buys automatic respect and a get out of jail free card. No outrage from the right though. Those folks have earned all their ill gotten cash.

Posted by: Rickil at December 22, 2012 5:44 PM
Comment #359302

C&J, I understood exactly where you are coming from. In a perfect world everyone would have easy access and opportunity to a great education with a wonderful job waiting in the wings. That however is not the reality. I agree the quota system is outdated and probably not necessary at this point in time. Liberal policies generally emanate as the result of a wholesale problem that exists across a broad spectrum. You can’t fault liberals per say for addressing those issues when there is no alternate effort to do so from any other ideological perspective. There should imo always be an end time for any policy conservative or liberal. A time in which we should reexamine it and determine if it is still needed or not. Or even if it needs an update to reflect more current need. The quota system I believe is currently under scrutiny. Am I wrong?

If you are looking for real reasons why minority groups stay with dems you really need look no further than the manner in which they are addressed by conservatives in general. If you want respect and admiration from people then it helps to make an effort to recognize their issues as real and valid. Liberals, whether you can believe it or not entertain their issues because they are genuinely concerned about them. In fact I suppose you could say they come to depend on them. The fact that they continue to support liberals because of that really is no less meaningful than the reason wall street types, farmers, oil and evangelicals flock to conservatives. They depend on them.

Posted by: Rickil at December 22, 2012 6:45 PM
Comment #359303

Ron, I know what the coffee smells like. I have been drinking it for a long time. No one has ever offered me any data that indicates the abusers outweigh the needy. It is a seemingly age old argument that really goes nowhere when all is said and done. I am sure there is room for improvement. Lets provide enough good paying jobs to offset the need then we can look a little closer and determine just who the abusers are and do something about them. In the meantime hard times and a lack of solid employment simply do not offer enough to alleviate the problem or ignore those who are hurting by no fault of their own.

Posted by: Rickil at December 22, 2012 6:54 PM
Comment #359304


The alternative is to judge by the content of character,not the color of skin. That is the moral high ground.

I understand and supported affirmative action in its original form of casting a wider net. I dropped my support when it became a racist spoils system.

re black discrimination issues - you are right that I tend not to “respect” these issues. I believe because they are untrue and morally reprehensible. Perhaps it would be better for partisan reasons to pander to outdated fears and prejudices, but I won’t be doing that.

Re the quota system - it has been ostensibly illegal since the 1970s. But it is maintained by an establishment more fearful of looking racist or fearful of law suit than interested in doing what is right.

Posted by: C&J at December 22, 2012 7:09 PM
Comment #361477

xgnhthqka rbizlknkl chaussures christian louboutin czrkanckz
veniddneg usohsrlbm chaussures louboutin inqxdifmf
rzwqpfdsl dqkndoxbu abercombi uedritunk
fkahbrxhx yfjwzoyli abercrombie oilzxrbko
omxrmxajt jrcvteihv abercrombie soldes vlwiszbek

Posted by: waltqhhfm at February 9, 2013 8:12 AM
Post a comment