Third Party & Independents: Archives

Now, it can hardly be an indictment against a political party if kooks create a candidacy under the party name.

Embarrassed acknowledgement of Michael Moore noted.

I wonder though, is it only the Democrats that get to be “diverse” in its views, and gets to have its rhetorical cake and eat it too? (Or in Moore’s case, eat every cake in the shop?)

The GOP survives on hate. This year, Bush’s re-election depends on hate for Arabs and homosexuals.

Michael Moore is not running for office under the Democratic canopy. HUGE Difference. The party has no control over who identifies themselves with their party, but, the Parties DO have control over who runs for office under their party’s name.

Republicans hate Democrats and Democrats hate Republicans. It’s a vicious cycle of hate.

Should we just have a civil war and get it over with, or are we going to move past these differences and start to act like a real country for a change?

(In the civil war link, go to the left drop-down lists under “The Posts by Topic” and pick “John’s War”. It’s all science fiction hogwash, but a good illustration of a reasonably educated guess as to what’s in store if we keep up this partisan hatred nonsense.)

entertainment new, The GOP survives on talking peace and security while promoting war and divisiveness. It will be their undoing …

Ciggy, you really don’t know the mind of the American people at large. They are not, in the majority, motivated by, or harborers of, hate. I have many Republicans and a Libertarian for family members, all of whom I love.

You are focusing on the fringe and projecting that fringe on the majority. The majority of Americans are not haters. Do you want to be one of those folks who promote the falsehood that Americans are a hateful people? Some are certainly, but, most are not. I would suggest that among voters, most are not haters. And I would bet money that the 40+ percent of disaffected are also non-haters. Skeptical perhaps, cynical possibly, but, hateful? I don’t see any evidence of that.

Ciggy, thanks for posting that! As soon as I saw your link, before I clicked it, I knew you were going to link to John Titor! I love that whole John Titor story, I think it’s actually a great work of contemporary science fiction writing.

-Cf

David, cheap shot. GOP rascist. I mean really, can someone please update the playbook?

I am shocked Eric, that you don’t even denounce him as a member of your party.

Head in the sand, maybe it will go away?

Ciggy, you really don’t know the mind of the American people at large. They are not, in the majority, motivated by, or harborers of, hate.

Just say the word “Bush” and 9 out of 10 out there will prove that one wrong. Either against him (from the left) or against his enemies (from the right). The only one I’ve seen to really not froth at the mouth lately has been Ben Affleck, when he got interviewed by O’Reilly. He kept his cool, kept away from the Moorean shit-stirring mantras, and kept on-point about policies and facts. It almost made the Democratic Party look GOOD for a change. Like a progressive Bill Buckley with an American accent.

But no. Most of the people I’ve seen lately are running around with their hair on fire screaming “oh my gawd, BUSH IS HITLER! BUSH IS HITLER! BUSH IS M***** F****** HITLER!” They look to be about a half step away from reaching for a molotov cocktail or shouting Allahu Akhbar.

Well, okay, some lawyers I know are relatively calm too. But don’t underestimate the Springer demographic. These are people who look in the mirror and repeat memorized lines from “Reservoir Dogs”. And they can get a mean streak in ‘em.

And I would bet money that the 40+ percent of disaffected are also non-haters.

The disaffected are the steaming boiling core of the player-hater phenomenon. It’s the power of that hate that Kerry is harnessing right now. Al Sharpton’s “40 acres and a mule” speech, saying they all vote Democrat now because they think Lincoln lied to ‘em… that’s a long time for hatred to boil.

But you know what? Kerry left a tantalizing hint about how he’s going to go up to successful rappers and tax away all their bling-bling. Ludacris: sorry you can’t drive that Bentley anymore. IRS is confiscating it. You’re too rich, and that’s not allowed. Kerry’s president now.

See, after your lecture about “understanding Americans”, you seem to forget one key factor about the “disaffected”. It is that they want to GET to where they WON’T be anymore. And if you promise them you’ll confiscate everything they worked for if they DO climb out of the ghetto, prepare for a bit of a South Side Surprise on “yo azz” when you play that to the hilt.

Ciggy, I should have defined the word hate in this context as I used it.

Found here. 1. To have a great aversion to, with a strong desire that evil should befall the person toward whom the feeling is directed; to dislike intensely; to detest; as, to hate one’s enemies; to hate hypocrisy. “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” 1 John iii. 15.

Thus, my intent in the use of the word is desire evil befall those hated or to kill/murder/exterminate those one hates. I fully concede there is a lot of dislike and divisiveness. But, most Americans do not hate each other by the definition I used above.

David, he sounds like a kook. I do indeed disavow him. I will call my local chapter of the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy …to rule the world.) and have him eliminated- I mean taken off the ballot.

Eric, I would suggest you call your National Party Headquarters and tell them your continued alliegance to the GOP depends upon their cutting this guy’s campaign off from any National GOP funding. Anything less supports his representation of the GOP.

Your smug ‘disavowment’ Eric, really speaks volumes about your party’s history of publicly condemning racism, while quietly utilizing it for it’s political asset.

In many local Republican organizations throughout the South, avowed racists and White Separatists have slowly ingraciated themselves into the party’s inter-workings. This is mainly due to these groups members’ effective involvement in County and Local politics, and continued ability to deliver voters to the polls.

This is how, Republican Gov. Haley Barbour (MS) came to appear on the website">http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/10/22/barbours_racist_links_tar_bush_too/”>website of a racist group - and, still won the election!

David, thanks for bringing this to the attention of WatchBlog readers! It is now 8 hours since you posted this entry. I have found links to many Tennessee media outlets and a number from overseas. However, no mention in the NYTimes, CNN, Wash. Post, or MSNBC. So far, the AP story, USA Today, and - Fox News!

Thanks Bert. The story screamed for coverage so I saw my duty and did it! Some would like to dismiss it as a cheap shot, but, the issue is extremely important to folks on both sides of the red-blue divide as it also is to those in the Green.

If I were a Republican, I would want Hart’s candidacy denounced by the National Party ASAP, for political reasons if not as a matter of conscience.

Your smug ‘disavowment’ Eric, really speaks volumes about your party’s history of publicly condemning racism, while quietly utilizing it for it’s political asset.

The smugness is in response to being labeled a rascist. Republican = rascist. Good job, guys.

Look, I am one of the most partisan people here, I’ll admit that. But to take a kook who can register as whatever he wants and run in any race by filing out papers, and call the GOP a rascist party is underhanded, untrue, and downright unamerican. I wouldn’t expect it from a man of David’s caliber. So I assumed that he did so in a half-mocking sense of partisanship just to prod the right-wingers to see if we were awake. Thus I responded in kind.

Are you telling me Bert, that you feel this charge that the GOP is rascist is serious?

The Republican party can make sure that this guy doesn’t get anything from the party. Hopefully they can remove him as a Republican candidate. That may not be possible. The story David linked to sounded like the local party apparatus wasn’t even going to run anyone, hence the crank, whatever his name is.

Eric, I was very explicit in saying both in the article and in my comments that it is simply not true that all Republicans are racist. Hart just won a Republican primary however, which means Republicans voted for him. That has to mean that there are some Republicans who DO NOT regard this guy as a Kook, and what’s more, they want him to represent them.

This is why I was a bit taken back by your seemingly non-plused initial response. This story could seriously hurt your party. And as I said, if I were a Republican, I would do what Democrats did in calling on their party to distance themselves from Zell Miller. Very effectively too, I might add outside Zell Miller’s constituent boundaries. The D Party has for all intents and purposes disowned Zell Miller. As the Republican Party should do with Hart.

It remains to be seen if the GOP will, however. Hart has a constituency in the GOP.

Eric,

Do not attempt to bait me and demean my opinion, by thinking you’re gonna get a Farrakhan-like indictment of your party, as a whole, outta me!

But, you cannot side step the Haley Barbour incident, and the fact that white supremacist, segregationist, and ‘white citizen council’ groups in the South, have become key members, participants and operatives, either within the Republican Party, or working on their behalf.

James L. Hart did not just slip in under the GOP radar, he previously ran twice for the same nomination, as a Republican!

And in the meantime we have respected Democratic members of congress ranting day in and day out about Zionist conspiracies and the many crimes of the Jews. But oops—let’s not talk about that (they’re Democrats, after all).

Instead let’s focus on some crank who hasn’t been elected and won’t be. Let’s also ignore the fact that big bad racist George Bush has the most racially inclusive administration in the history of the US presidency.

> And in the meantime we have respected
> Democratic members of congress ranting
> day in and day out about Zionist
> conspiracies and the many crimes of
> the Jews.

Who are you talking about?

-Cf

I will just assume that people, including David, overlooked this little fact… What happend here is this guy was running unopposed on the ballot and his only “competition” was a last-minute write-in campaign when some people realized that this nutjob, who has no chance of winning the general election, was on the ballot unopposed. I think you can all understand that a write-in candidate has little chance of defeating someone who is unopposed on the ballot. Looks like this one was a swing and miss- but I am sure there will be more attempts to try again. This would be like if some communist won a democratic primary in the heart of Mississippi because no other democrat had bothered to sign up on the ballot until the deadline had passed.

As for charges of racism in both parties- until the democratic party drops its support for the patently racist affirmative action, and the republicans stop their rhetoric regarding the treatment of muslims in the war against terror, both parties have a lot of work to do before they can seriously point at the other party….

I’ll just ditto Misha on this one. She says it much better than I could.

Bert,

But, you cannot side step the Haley Barbour incident, and the fact that white supremacist, segregationist, and ‘white citizen council’ groups in the South, have become key members, participants and operatives, either within the Republican Party, or working on their behalf.

James L. Hart did not just slip in under the GOP radar, he previously ran twice for the same nomination, as a Republican!

So is the Republican party rascist? Yes or no?

Frankly, it offends me to be called a rascist or be lumped together with rascists.

Shelby County has already disavowed this kook. Hart himself admits that, “he does not represent the ideas of the Republican Party.”

07/03/2004

Republican Party Endorses Dennis Bertrand for Congress

On Thursday night, in an unprecedented move, the Shelby County Republican Party Steering Committee unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the write-in candidacy of Dennis Bertrand for Congress in the 8th Congressional District and repudiating the candidacy of James L. Hart. Hart is a candidate of hate who does not even claim to be a Republican and who said “It’s true that I don’t represent the ideas of the Republican Party” in a June 26 article in the Commercial Appeal.

The 8th District includes northwestern Shelby County, southwestern Montgomery County, and the entirety of Tipton, Haywood, Madison, Crockett, Lauderdale, Dyer, Gibson, Carroll, Benton, Humphreys, Dixon, Houston, Stewart, Henry, Weakley, Obion, and Lake counties. The communities of Frayser, Millington, and Shelby Forest are located within the district. While it has been represented by John Tanner and other Democrats for a very long time, it is one of the fastest growing areas of the state for Republican activity and George W. Bush pulled even with Al Gore in 2000 within the boundaries of the district.

SCRP Chairman Kemp Conrad said “I am pleased that Republicans in the 8th district now have an opportunity to have a real Republican candidate if they are willing to step up and write in Dennis Bertrand to be the Republican nominee.” Bertrand will need to get more write-in votes in the August 5 primary than Hart does in order to be the Republican nominee for the November 2 election. Conrad said that “The Republican Platform states that ‘We denounce all who practice or promote racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance’ and we will not sit idly by and allow one man to tarnish our Party name.”

Bertrand, an Army veteran, has worked in the insurance and financial services industry for fifteen years. He currently works with American International Group as a Financial Services Advisor in northwest Tennessee. A copy of the complete resolution as passed by the Committee is below:

—————————————
A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT REPUBLICAN DENNIS BERTRAND IN HIS EFFORT TO DEFEAT CONGRESSMAN JOHN TANNER

Whereas, a candidate named James Hart has filed as a Republican in the Eighth Congressional District who supports a racist and elitist view of man,

Whereas, Hart espouses the same brand of socialism advocated by Adolph Hitler and says that he believes that some races are “favored” over others and wants to “compete with Jesus Christ and Buddha for the destiny of man.”,

Whereas Hart himself said in a June 26 Commercial Appeal article: “I think they have every right to oppose my campaign and to have another candidate. I think it’s true that I don’t represent the ideas of the Republican Party.”,

Whereas, it is of the utmost importance for Republicans to unite around a strong Republican candidate to go against Congressman Tanner,

Whereas, a good conservative Republican candidate has stepped up to the plate to redeem our Party name and take on Congressman Tanner;

Whereas TeamGOP, a respected grassroots Republican activist group in West Tennessee has also endorsed Bertrand and asked other Republicans for support,

NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Shelby County Republican Party that we strongly oppose the un-American and evil beliefs espoused by James Hart.

We agree with Dennis Bertrand that we “cannot in good conscience allow a candidate like James L. Hart to represent the Republican Party from the 8th Congressional District in the November General Election.”

We urge all 8th district Republicans to unite behind Dennis Bertrand and cast a write-in ballot for him in the August 5, 2004 election.

This resolution shall be sent to all appropriate media outlets and Republican Party Chairmen in the Eighth Congressional District. Shelby County GOP

I’ve actually emailed the Shelby County GOP asking them to somehow strip the R designation from Hart if that is at all legally possible.

Eric, contacting Shelby County GOP, speaks volumes about the veracity of your comments. It was an imminently respectable thing to do. It is so easy for folks to talk, but, those who walk the talk are above reproach in my book, as you have demonstrated.

I appreciate your indignant posture over being “lumped together with racists”. I feel the same way when those on the right lump me in as a Nader/Green Party supporter with Communists and Marxists.

Misha, note the following from the article:

With 86 percent of the primary vote counted Thursday, write-in candidate Dennis Bertrand had just 1,554 votes compared to 7,671, or 83 percent, for James L. Hart, a believer in the discredited, phony science of eugenics.

He was not unopposed! And what of the 83% of the vote he did get? Are these Republican voters ignorant of the candidate they vote for? Do they simply vote Republican without caring who the candidate is or what the candidate stands for? Or were they informed and racists themselves, all? Probably some of both. Ignorant Republican voters and forthright racists. What other deductions can be drawn?

And what does it say that these same voters will vote for GW Bush? (I have no doubt the Democrats have their counterparts, but, this story speaks volumes about a large number of American voters, IMHO)

Ciggy- I am a guy. Misha is Russian for Mike.

David- I would bet dollars to donuts that if that EITHER party invented a fictious candidate and put him on the ballot unopposed in a primary, he would get at least 70% of the vote. I think you and I both know the state party-line voting in this country.

Eric said: ” Hart himself admits that, “he does not represent the ideas of the Republican Party.”

That is true enough, one only need read the Republican Party platform to confirm what you say is true Eric. However, Hart himself DOES represent the values and beliefs of some Republican voters - that is self-evident in the fact that he garnered 7,671 Republican votes.

Thus Bert is correct in his statement that the Republican Party is the home party for a number of racist voters. That too is evidenced by this story. Though how many were just plain ignorant and how many were racists is not possible to assess.

Misha, I find it incredulous that 7 out of 10 voters are ignorant of the canidates they vote for. I agree there are millions of just plain ignorant voters out there, but, 7 out of 10 is about twice what I would estimate the number to be.

Misha, sorry ‘bout the accidental gender-bend.

сожалеющий

its ok Ciggy- your Russian is impressive :)

Christopher, when Democratic members of Congress have made antisemitic remarks, most of their colleagues have commendably tried to distance themselves from them immediately. My point is that bot sides have whackos, and it’s not fair to accuse everyone for the actions and views of a fews.

This Republican candidate isn’t even a member of congress, and it’s highly unlikely he ever be, so trying to brand Republicans as racist although none whatsoever would want to be associated with him (or even heard of him until now) is grossly unfair.

As for antisemitic remarks from Democrats, the ground is thick with them. I remember former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (and her father, former state representative Billy McKinney) both making virulently anti-semitic comments. “This is all about the Jews,” McKinney claimed—not about the war in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan!

Congressman Jim Moran has also been quoted claming that the Iraq war is part of a Jewish conspiracy.
and a fomer aide to Hillary Clinton claimed that she called him (and his story was supported by two witnesses), “a f****** Jew bastard.” Now I don’t think Hillary is antisemtic, but that remark would have ended the political career of any Republican.

And as for other Democratic leaders, how about Jesse Jackson’s (fairly innocuous) remark about Himey-town and Al Sharpton’s absolutely deadly stoking of antisemitic riots in NY?

I cheated for the cyrillic transliteration from here.

Conversationally, I only know a handful of words, although I’d like to learn it so I could read Gogol or Dostoevsky in the original Russian.

I feel the same way when those on the right lump me in as a Nader/Green Party supporter with Communists and Marxists.

I usually do. Lump then together I mean.

I’m thinking about the term neo-anti-capitalists. What do you think?

Martin, the biggest growth demographic for the Republican Party is among Jews. That would be the handiwork of Michael Medved and Dennis Prager having worked overtime to paint (rightly or wrongly) the Democrats as anti-Israel, if not full-out anti-Jewish.

There is a difference, of course, between “anti-Israel” and “anti-Jewish”, but Pat Buchanan couldn’t get a word in edgewise when he tried to explain himself in that regard after having suggested we not support Israel so one-sidedly in their conflict with the Arab/Muslim world.

I think it’s in the interest of America’s national security position to politely tell American Jews that while we don’t discriminate AGAINST them in our country, neither will we be discriminating in their favor in that land grab they pulled off in Palestine. If they want to make a biblical argument out of it, just tell them that Esau having sold the title to it for a bowl of lentil stew was made under the duress of his hunger, and is not a valid transfer of title. Babylonians, Romans, and Turks have been helping to drive that point home ever since about 600 BCE. The most sturdy ground Zionism can stand on, biblically, is that Persia let them live there for a while. Even Moses said they weren’t guaranteed to keep it, and the way they were already behaving had to withold it for 40 years. That’s indicative of a very tentative claim to a piece of property, which Yahweh could (and did) foreclose on a hair-trigger.

But a healthy start for America would be to adhere to U.N. resolutions relating to Israel, and regain some semblance of consistency in policy regarding such resolutions.

Eric, pure Socialism has been proven not to work (the U.S.S.R.) and the pure Capitalism of Dickensian times with robber-barons, and conditions portrayed in “The Gangs of New York”, that’s not something worth trying to recreate in modern times either.

I think it’s safe to say that 90% of people anywhere with any shred of intellect will admit that some blending of Capitalist and Socialist elements is what’s best for a society. The analogy I use is that profit motive is like fuel, and without it, your “engine” won’t get anywhere. And if the profit motive fuel isn’t regulated by the “engine” of a few elements of government involvement, you can make a nice big fireball with it, but even there you’re not really progressing down the road, except by the force of a brutish blast. The optimal thing to do is to engineer a system socially, and to include, in that engineering, healthy doses of Capitalist motivations (economic carrots and sticks), to keep the Socialist pistons cranking.

While it’s true that the rhetoric of some Democrats and Greens (a title I use facetiously here—I think I’m just “Independant” more than anything else) would seem to be anti-Capitalist and even extremely so at times, I do think most Democrats would stop short of falling off the Marxist cliff of adhering to the insane rant that “all property is theft”. In fact, if the Democrats could do away with the notion that we must pick the pocket of future generations in order to subsidize the lifestyle of the lazy (in exchange for the votes of the lazy), then I could probably dust myself off and call myself “Democrat” as early as tomorrow. And I’m certainly no “anti-Capitalist”.

Ciggy, the lover and defender of the UN and its resolutions. Now I’ve seen everything.

If the US put much more pressure on Israel than we already do, through the UN or unilaterally, we’d lose even the leverage we have with them now. And then there WOULD be a resolution to their conflict with the Palestinians, which would mean the Palestinians would get sent packing at gunpoint to Arab lands. And any Arab countries who tried at that point to realize their dream of driving Israel into the sea would learn once and for all how fantastic their lives could become without American intervention.

Incidentally, there are no UN resolutions to enforce against Israel except non-binding general assembly ones to the effect that Zionism equals racism, that Palestinian terrorism is a legititmate act of political expression, that Israel should not be allowed to possess military hardware to defend itself, etc.

Our security council veto, some seem to think, keeps the heat off of Israel. It’s more likely, however, that it keeps the Arabs from being destroyed by a fierce and determined people who are sick and tired of being scapegoats and targets for genocide by failed dictatorships and morally bankrupt Euoropeans, who have been killing and allowing them to be killed for generations.

Ciggy, the lover and defender of the UN and its resolutions. Now I’ve seen everything.

I’m a lover and defender of this country, and I think U.N. resolutions being evenly adhered to in the middle east is one of the steps along the path to protecting it.

If the US put much more pressure on Israel than we already do, through the UN or unilaterally, we’d lose even the leverage we have with them now.

So be it. To what end do we exercise “leverage” if that exercise costs us hysterical hatred from the Arab Street? If we are restraining Israel so much, then perhaps it’s even in Israel’s interest for the U.S. to step away and dissociate, and let the blood of the Arabs they feel they have to kill to survive, be on their hands and their hands only.

And any Arab countries who tried at that point to realize their dream of driving Israel into the sea would learn once and for all how fantastic their lives could become without American intervention.

That would be the Arab/Muslim world’s mistake to make, if they choose to make it. We can’t be everybody’s mother out there.

Incidentally, there are no UN resolutions to enforce against Israel except non-binding general assembly ones to the effect that Zionism equals racism, that Palestinian terrorism is a legititmate act of political expression, that Israel should not be allowed to possess military hardware to defend itself, etc.

On Oct. 7, the UN passed resolution 1322 against Israel “condemning acts of violence, especially excessive use of force against Palestinians.”

The U.S. has vetoed 29 UN resolutions against Israel. The U.S. has never vetoed a single UN resolution against an Arab country. Don’t you think that after the 27th or 28th or so, they might begin to see a pattern, and start to get ticked off about it?

What is so special about our devotion to Israel that when it attacked the U.S.S Liberty ship in 1967 killing 33 sailors and injuring 177, our government ignored the sailors’ families requests to investigate the “accident” further? What is so special about this commitment that the U.S. has to look the other way every time Israel refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? What is so special about this “ally” that when Israel sells U.S. technology to China, Congress barely raises an objection and continues to supply Israel with military aid?

When the Law of Return gives any Jew in the world the right to Israeli citizenship but will not give that same right to the refugee families of Israel’s Arab citizens; when a country has subsidized 300 times as much housing for its Jewish community as it has for its Arab community; when its Ministry of Education spends twice as much on each Jewish child as it does on each Arab child; when a country breaks up stone-throwing Jewish rioters with tear gas and stone-throwing Arab rioters with live-fire and bombs; then I think the U.N. has a good bit of red meat in their argument of equating “Zionism” with racism. And we wouldn’t even have to enforce it with U.S. troops firing on any Israelis anywhere. Just nod in agreement that yes, a spade is indeed a spade. Would that be so hard? It WOULD save us $6.9 billion each year.

When Napoleon marched into Egypt having defeated the Mamelukes, in order to smoothe things out with the local population he declared that he and all of his troops had converted to Islam. I don’t suggest we go quite that far when acting to defend our national interests in the Middle East, but I do say that not subsidizing an apartheid system that discriminates against them, would be an appropriate level of smootheness, for starters.

> As for antisemitic remarks from Democrats,
> the ground is thick with them.

Your hearsay examples hardly count as “thick with them”. I’m not going to believe that either party is significantly racist in any way, and I don’t think we should read much into the GOP wacko David is digging up, but you’ll also have a hard time convincing me that openly racist/anti-semitic/homophobic Americans don’t tend to find the GOP to be an ever so slightly more welcoming family than the Democrats.

-Cf

Fine, Ciggy. But I doubt we’d be doing ourselves the favor you think we would be doing by allowing the Arabs to commit mass suicide in their jihad against Israel.

The only way we’d win over the Arab street (a street we ourselves paid for) is by finishing off Israel ourselves, and we in America are not quiet ready to carry out Hilter’s dream in this manner, no matter what friends it might win us.

Eric said,”I usually do. Lump then together I mean.”

I’m thinking about the term neo-anti-capitalists. What do you think?

I think you don’t know what you are talking about. Most on the left or even in the Green Party of the U.S. are not anti-capitalism. They are pro-mixed economy with checks and balances on capitalist excesses, which I have seen you defend in the form of regulations that prevent and punish fraud, and illegal behavior by the likes of Enron and Adelphia.

I think you demonnize the left and because you make few distinctions, I think you reveal a blind prejudice incapable of discerning the difference between the USSR and Great Britain or FDR’s USA. I think your prejudice keeps you from seeing and acknowledging that our own military, NASA program, Interstate Highway system and a host of other socialized programs in America are just that, socialized programs at their best. Money is extracted from all to directly benefit some but the society as a whole is far better off for them.

Of course there are some on the left with an equal and opposite prejudice against capitalism, this country does still have a socialist party after all, but, if you will notice, their numbers are inconsequential. If we believed your point of view it would be difficult to explain why 100 Million or so on the left don’t just join the socialist party. Fact is, most on the left have absolutely no desire to eradicate capitalism, only protect the public from its excesses when it acts as if no one is looking.

David—

You have stirred up a hornets nest my friend. How could you accuse the party on Lincoln of such a heinous thing? You know the sad thing is historically it was the Democrats whose ranks were filled with racist. But after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the dynamics changed and the Party of Lincoln in an effort to wind Southern Democratic votes fully embraced the politics of hate, and bigotry.

One has to look not further then Bush’s speech at Bob Jones University, his continual refusal to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, and his refusal to speak at the NAACP’s Annual Conventions as prove that the Republican Party is singularly unconcerned about the issues of Black folk. Or perhaps we should throw in the late night, back woods haunts of one Trent Lott? And the exploitation of Willy Horton to play on the fears of white Americans (we all know Black American males are to be feared, after all they commit most of the crime in America) Does this speak to racism? One could argue that it does, and if not it certain gives a tacit node to it continued existence.

As far as Mr. Hart is concerned, he should have been denounced by the national Republican Party, and his remarks held out as unacceptable by those who cherish equality and justice for all. Perhaps the President as leader of his Party should take the lead in this. But we all know that it will not happen, because deep down the Party faithful harbor the same feelings in their breasts. Oh say it isn’t so…

The Republican Party has nothing for minorities, Black, Brown, Yellow, or Hispanic.

I grew up in Ohio in the 60’s. My Neighbors were racist. My relatives from eastern Kentucky were mostly racist. My father although he did teach me to consider the individual and not the race, spoke of blacks and “niggers” as separate entitities of which whites could also be “niggers”. In polite society and school racism was considered ignorant and low class.

I moved to the south in my early twenties and was surprised at the way white people who barely knew me would share their hatred of blacks and employers would tell me they wouldn’t hire them.
The racism wasn’t really different, it was just more out in the open.

The people I knew who supported Ronald Reagan were adamant racists. They continue to support Republican candidates and cheer the anti affirmative action and welfare reform platforms as code words for support of their racist views.

I do not believe Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan or George Bush were or are racists. The Republican party has however taken shameless advantage of the Democratic support of civil rights legislation to dominate the south. Their tacit advocacy of these code words is dispicable.

I received this email this morning from the Shelby County GOP.

Eric,

Believe me, if we could, we would - and would have done so long ago. There just isn’t a way for us to do so.

The Party will not only not provide any support to Hart, we are actively working against him and will continue educating Republican voters in the district on Hart’s views so that they will not mistakenly cast ballots for him again. This nut is not a Republican, does not claim to be a Republican, and has just hijacked our nomination to promote his sick views. Hart has said that he is “so far left I make Karl Marx look like the Christian Coalition.” He could just as easily have ran in the Democrat Primary in an equally uncompetitive district.

________________________
Don Johnson
Shelby County Republican Party
Phone: (901) 682-3335
Temp. Cell: (901) 258-1034
scrp@shelbygop.org
www.shelbygop.org

Not only is this guy not a Republican, doesn’t consider himself a Republican, but he considers himself a socialist… “so far left I make Karl Marx look like the Christian Coalition.”

So I ask you David, who does this guy represent?

…because deep down the Party faithful harbor the same feelings in their breasts. Oh say it isn’t so…

V. Edward,

Partisan jibes aside, I would beg to differ with you. Yes, there are racists out there. I’ve certainly met white racists during my life, some of whom were in fact democrats, and I have met black racists as well. In fact I have had an individual from out of the blue shout at me on the street with hate that was palpable. I’m 99.9% positive he was a Nation of Islam member. The truth is that racism is a historical reality amongst almost every people that ever existed. The greeks had slaves and considered every non-greek to be inferior. (Also their own women and lower classes, etc.)

But this painting of all Republican’s as racists is just plain wrong. I was not brought up to think that way and I don’t personally know anyone, Republican or Democrat, who was either. Those who are rascists are dying out. It’s a failed ideology that is discredited and dishonorable.

The Republican Party has nothing for minorities, Black, Brown, Yellow, or Hispanic.

In as much as Republicans espouse freedom, they espouse it for all. Ironically all Democrats have to offer is the same old failed policies that have been complained about for the last forty years.

If you think about it, the politics embraced by the left do nothing to lessen the division of people into separate groups it accentuates it! The left sees everyone as being a part of the group you were born into first. Not your voluntary associations. Isn’t that a form of racism? Even if it is thought of as positive racism?

Republicans know that self-determination is more important than what group you were born into. No matter who you are, you have potential and you can reach it.

I received this email this morning from the Shelby County GOP.

Great job, Eric. I like threads with happy endings.

The Democrats have an anti-semitism problem:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001999939_alexander09.html

Looks like the Republican Party has done exactly what they should on this one. I think some people on this thread should give them a little credit!

The fact that this guy is to the left of Karl Marx- well that doesnt suprize me one bit. The same people who believe we are genetically determined by our race would have no problem believing the same garbage about us being economically determined by our class. It all goes along with the denial of concepts of free will and the ability of people to determine their own destinies and moral characters.

(also note that I said above: “This would be like if some communist won a democratic primary in the heart of Mississippi because no other democrat had bothered to sign up on the ballot until the deadline had passed.” looks like we had a communist win on the REPUBLICAN ballot- thats even one step further than what i said. sometimes I wonder about our democracy if our voters are so uneducated about the candidates they vote for…)

I doubt we’d be doing ourselves the favor you think we would be doing by allowing the Arabs to commit mass suicide in their jihad against Israel.

We can suggest they not do so, and warn of the protective measures Israel might take if they became desperate, although there have been skirmishes in the past where Israel did keep it conventional and simply whacked their attackers conventionally (and held onto some of their territory as punishment for attacking them).

The road to peace has one necessary stopover on the way: the road to justice.

The only way we’d win over the Arab street (a street we ourselves paid for) is by finishing off Israel ourselves

I’m talking about simmering down the hatred to where they aren’t lining up miles deep in recruitment into Al Qaeda. I’m not talking about a level of love to where they dance in the street and kiss pictures of future President John Kerry (if they could do so without turning into frogs). If they want to sit in a cafe and grouse that it took the U.S. too long to come around to a neutral stance in the Arab/Israeli conflict, that’s fine. Such grousing, though, at that level, won’t necessarily make it Islamically worth their while to turn themselves into meat bombs and kill American women and children. If they still want to take day trips into Mosul and play lead paintball with U.S. troops, I could even live with that level of dislike. Just don’t motivate them to fly to the U.S. to carry out WMD-equipped plots.

we in America are not quiet ready to carry out Hilter’s dream in this manner, no matter what friends it might win us.

Hitler’s dream was to wipe out all Jews from the human repertoire of DNA. The dream of Arabs is to wipe out Israel as a state and as a political edifice. The dream of America should be to wipe out the likelihood that Arabs would have to do that political wipeout over the bodies of American women and children in our big cities.

Short-term, yes, we have to track down al-Qaeda and eliminate them like antibodies do a disease. One by one, make them ex-fanatics and let them learn first-hand that they don’t get the 72 virgins. But the long-term trip to go on will be to shut off the heat to hatred’s boiler. That is, presuming that we aren’t up for a war of total annihilation between cultures.

V. Edward,

But after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the dynamics changed and the Party of Lincoln in an effort to wind Southern Democratic votes fully embraced the politics of hate, and bigotry.

The post-Johnson landscape has redrawn the racial policy lines in this way: rather than be the party of overt racist hatred, the new DNC paradigm became the party of racial preferences, boondoggles, welfare hand-outs, and a translation of erstwhile bigotry into a thicker sugar coat, saying that without these handouts black people would wither up and die, and that the Democrats are the ones to give it to them, “so vote Democrat, or Da Man will take away yo WELFEAH CHECK!” The blatant insult to people of color inherent in that party line is submerged in maudlin portrayals of families unable to do anything at all unless government does it for them. In that sort of a smarmy disguise, people like Al Sharpton can even be convinced that the KKK’s existence was Abe Lincoln’s fault, and that without 40 acres and a mule from the Union (Republican) Army, they were better off under the Confederacy (Democrats), where at least as slaves they were fed and housed and kept warm in the winter. I’ve got to hand it to southern Democrats: they know their black people. They know which buttons to push, and exactly how hard to push ‘em. Nope, without that 40 acres and a mule, there shouldn’t have been any dickering over States Rights at all, between North and South. None.

Anyway, the Republicans do a pathetic job of trying to voice their side of the story in all this. They promote people of color into lofty positions and say that this one-ups them over Democrats for racial equality, where even an idiot will know that the Democrat poverty pimps will just shoot back that the promoted ones are “tokens and uncle toms”. Few if any Republicans go into detail as to how a subsidy for a lazy lifestyle is exactly what KEEPS people of color in a disenfranchized position in society: they are lured into a livestock pen with the promise of baksheesh, and then locked into multi-generational welfare reservations (just like the Native Americans), where the steps up and out of there along the economic ladder amount, not to rewards, but SACRIFICE of the welfare assistance. So in those slave-pens they stay locked up, waiting on “mazzah” to give ‘em their check, and voting “mazzah’s” party whenever “mazzah” says to vote that way.

And Al Sharpton never truly realizes that he is being used as a token, in exactly the worst ways they imagine Condi Rice is.

Eric, I recant what I said about the Republican Party being unlikely to appropriately respond to Hart’s primary win.

You have demonstrated that I was wrong and that the Republican Party, at the very least, has enough Public Relations sense, to not promote an outspoken racist’s bid for election. In fact I recant almost my entire last paragraph of the article.

I cannot commend your action in contacting the GOP office in Tennessee, highly enough. People who walk their talk, are deserving of respect and demonstrate the kind of integrity which is very badly needed in this country. I solute your action.

My personal experience here in S. Central Texas, a very Republican area in a very Republican state, is that educated and intelligent Republicans do not say anything remotely racist in public. They don’t promote and stand up for programs that would seek to give those discriminated against a helping hand. They cater to the Mexican vote on family values, but, do little to nothing to actively negate the intense and widespread racism against Mexicans.

There are institutionalized behaviors which keep the hill countries near all white working class communities all-white. There are no housing vacancies for Mexicans owned or managed by whites, and those jobs one sees in the paper, are filled, or the Mexican applicants are never qualified for them. The Mexicans who live in the hill country, are few, hold menial jobs, and are shunned in very subtle ways. I have very often noted how many store clerks avoid eye contact and smiling at their Mexican clients ahead of me in line, but, are cheery, smiling, and full of small talk when my caucasion wife steps up for check out.

I have seen exactly the same behavior by whites in Saginaw, Mi. toward blacks where I had relatives who used to be solidly Democratic, but who, being mostly racists, have become Republicans since Reagan’s tenure. The racism there is much more outspoken where blacks are blamed for the dearth of jobs in Flint and Saginaw, cities which were predominantly white in the 50’s and 60’s. Being auto related in their job base, and therefore blue collar in their job base, affirmative action and civil rights legislation permitted a large number of blacks from Detroit to migrate to Saginaw and Flint and acquire relatively great jobs in the 1970’s.

That was the source as far as I can see and from what my relatives tell me for their racism and their conversion from Democrats to Republicans. They are very animated about opposing affirmative action, and the reason is because that program brought the blacks in their communities. Tied to their good paying, good benefit jobs, my white relatives would not give up their jobs to move. They kept their jobs and let their racism grow and burn in their minds.

Based on my personal experience and a great deal of research on racism, I stand by my contention that the GOP is a racist party still, as it attracts racists to its rolls primarily for the GOP stance against affirmative action and its ‘right to work’ laws promoted in Republican states.

David, the problem we run into is that so many on the left say (as you seem to be implicating—so you might want to clarify your own position a bit) that opposing affirmative action or advocating right-to-work is by definition racist. Therefore, presto: conservative positions are inherently racist.

Accusing the Republican party of being racist because some Republicans may be racist (as some Republicans or Democrats may also be wife-beaters, drug-dealers and murderers) is an extremely cheap shot, and frankly I expected better of you. It’s a very serious charge to tar such a large group of people with.

Yes, some who against affirmative action or any social program may be racist. Just as some who environmentalists may be racist—but racism does not have to be part of either side. There is certainly an element of racism to anti-NAFTA rhetoric (a staple of the left) that complains about foreigners getting jobs that are the god-given rights of true-blooded Americans.

I wonder—no actually, I know what your reaction would be if I said that everybody on the left are Communists because some on the left are. You’d start complaining about McCarthyism, and justifiably so. I know plenty of conservatives who care deeply about inclusiveness and racial tolerance—who have done real and vital work to that end. I wouldn’t advise calling any of them racist to their face.

Martin said, “Therefore, presto: conservative positions are inherently racist.”

I don’t believe it is that simple. What I believe occurs is that anti-affirmative action and right to work policies address many issues, economic, social, and political. These policies also open opportunities for racists to act out their racism. It is too simple and inaccurate to say that such policies are designed to protect and promote racism, because these policies have other principled objectives which have nothing to do with race.

Nonetheless, the fact is such policies open opportunities for racists in the general public to subtly wield their racism in decisions about who to hire, fire, and who to rent to or sell their house to, based on race and even gender.

Now if the policies contained language that foster and support whistle blowing regarding racist behavior, and if these policies granted rememdy for the those victimized by racists who take advantage of those policies, then I believe the Republican Party would have a legitimate defense that it is not a racist’s party.

But, no. The Republican Party goes on to oppose or curtail such remedies and bashes trial lawyers who would act as agents for bringing such racist behavior before the courts. The Republican Party wants to limit awards to victims to a level that would be inconsequential to large corporate violators, allowing them to continue to violate with impunity taking the costs in stride as a small cost of doing business. So taken into consideration this larger picture, I believe that the GOP is not led by racists, but, it is a party which attracts racists, and both the Party leadership and the racists I believe have an unspoken allegiance to each other.

David, I will pointedly ask you, since you didn’t respond to my comment previously: do you believe that the gravitational pull of welfare checks and free housing, to lock families into a place where they will only be ridiculed all their lives, shot at, knee-jerk searched by the police, etc., is a “non-racist” policy? What difference do you see between a public housing unit and slave quarters, apart from the lack of productive work to do? Do you have any idea how very much like Uncle Tom that Al Sharpton character looks in the eyes of some blacks with more discriminating abilities to see what’s going on?

And do you truly believe that there is a genetic propensity for black people to fail each and every time there isn’t a government handout to feed them? What does that say of your opinion of people of color?

David, blending the trial lawyer bit with the racism charge is a HUGE stretch which conjoins two separate issues in a way that is impossible to follow logically and is grossly unfair.

Racism is something that almost all informed and educated people with experience among diverse groups of people deplore, no matter what their political stripe. The conservative case against the excesses of trial lawyers (not the idea of either lawyers or trials, mind you) is something else all together, a criticism of the way in which economic sectors which hire—and thus, clothe, house and feed our population—are debilitated by frivoluous, self-serving lawyers who manipulate the law to line their own pockets while ruining everybody else (including the poor). Poor and disadvantaged minorites have suffered immeasurably as the result of some (not all) trial lawyers.

Also, attacking policies that MAY attract racists (while admitting that the policies themselves are not necessarily inherently racist) is a double-edged sword.

Protectionist economic policies which pit “true-blooded Americans against foreigners” may attract racists. Sympathy with the UN (which contains its fair share of racist governments) may attract racists.

Anything and anyone whatsoever may attract the affection of some half-witted racist somewhere—an incredibly weak and logically challenged reason for dismissing a position without considering its actual merits.

Martin, We will have to agree to disagree. Your position on this offers me no bridge. I see the connections and you don’t. Perception often dichotomizes that way.

I appreciate your reply though, and your staking out your position. It takes a degree of self-respect and guts to define one’s position in a public forum, and I respect that in you.

David, X O X O X O.

Me and Karl R have our eyes on you, buddy. I’ve been promised a thousand shares of Halliburton if I can deliver your vote, so don’t let me down.

Ciggy, in getting my degree, I had to take a course in environmental psychology. The study of how environment shapes human behavior. I loved the course and aced it because it was one of the more fascinating obligatory courses.

I grew up in the inner city of Detroit where we had what we euphemistally called “the Projects”. They were little more than welfare ghettos, and within 10 years of being occupied, that area became one in which not even the Detroit police wanted to go.

A huge amount of money and research went into understanding the dynamics of ghettos and the relationship between poverty and isolation.

One of the more productive research projects was designed around determining if a ghetto welfare recipient family were moved into a middle class neighborhood with rent assistance and job training, how would that family do and how would the neighborhood fair. The research was intriguing. It predicted that the liklihood of that families adults getting and keeping jobs would skyrocket, and that the environmental influence of a mixed race middle class neighborhood would modify the families behavior bringing their values into conformity with the rest of the neighborhood regarding upkeep and maintenance of the residence, yard, etc.

These studies were implemented in Oregon and a number of other communities back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. The real life results closely matched the research predictions with one notable exception. Where the families had resident members who were engaged in black market drugs, results were mixed. Where that factor was absent, a very large majority of families were still successful in maintaining jobs and their residence property 5 years later.

Subsequently, additional research has been done on neighborhood design, and pilot programs indicate that houses situated in cul-de-sacs with front doors facing each other promoted more neighbor affililation and interaction. Additionally, and more recently, it has been found that mixing income classes into without visible seams of separation, produced very, very stable communities, and very safe ones to boot. Interaction occured across income groups and income stratification did not manifest into community project and community activity stratification. A surprising result.

I forget which city it is, Portland perhaps, found it was not possible to sustain municipal revenues while urban flight continued to grow. The Mayor, having read about the research and pilot neighborhood’s success stories, implemented an ingenious plan. A cordon was drawn around the city. Tax breaks went to developers who developed and renovated urban environments (recycling neighborhoods, so to speak) and disincentives put in place for both residents and developers who chose to build outside the cordon. An amazing thing happened, in 10 years municipal revenues went up, the ghettos were transformed and their inhabitants incorporated into mixed strata income neighborhoods, and an overall revitalization of the city occured drawing new business and jobs to the area.

That should answer your question. Giving folks financial assistance without opportunity for them to be accepted, gainfully employed, and protected by city services that middle class America is accustomed to, is to create a ghetto. Giving them opportunities to be included, to become productive, and affording them exposure to the values of the middle class without making them conspicuous, is assistance extremely well invested with tremendous returns on that investment. An urban community can 1) eliminate the high cost of ghettos and the demands on tax revenues they create. And 2) such planned communities can also actually increase municipal revenues, reduce the demand on police, fire and emergency services, and generate new business and jobs which stable stratified education and income neighborhoods afford companies and corporations by way of work force.

Eric,

First of all, let me add my sincere admiration and support for the extroadinary step you took in reaffirming, by example, a Republican’s commitment to hard fought civil rights.

However, you must understand that it is very tempting (and plausible) for someone to label your party as racist (I refuse), in light of the fact, that a far more concerted effort has been waged to make clear to gay and lesbian Republicans, that they are not welcomed.

Just because the Shelby Co. party bosses have publicly severed ties, and Hart himself claims not to be a Republican, does not negate the fact that he ran twice on a Republican ballot, and was obviously familiar to not only the party, but also registered voters from previous primaries.

Those 7600+ voters knew damn well who and why they voted for James L. Hart. But, one thing is for sure, if the candidate was gay or lesbian, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I hardly doubt that Robert Byrd underwent a midlife turnaround on race relations. He realized that if he were to remain a powerful political figure, he really had to give the appearence of not being a racist anymore. Tough to do when you were in the KKK. Byrd did tip his hand when in 2001 he referred to “white niggers” on a Fox News program multiple times. But he did apologize, so all is well for the Democrats. I guess all Trent Lott needed to do was apologize. I guess all slaveholders and segregationists needed to do was apologize. Those days are behind them, so let’s forget about them. The hypocricy is pathetic. I would be ashamed to call myself a Democrat if I truly cared about race relations.

Eric—

I will submit that racism is universal, but here in the U.S. its historical practitioner’s have been and continue to be, white males. I’ll grant you that the climate of racism has gotten a lot better since my parents (and I) grew up in the South, but it is still alive and kicking, and more so in the Republican Party then the Democratic Party. Bush says that he wants the Republican Party to be one of inclusion, but his actions speak so much louder then his words. How dare he visit a campus that teaches separation of the races and anti-Jewish and then tell me he wants me in his Party. That visit may have been less then an hour but it speaks volumes about the man, his character, his principles, and his Party.

When Jessie Jackson was running for President way back when, he had my firm support until he referred to New York City as Hyme-town.

I feel as a moderate Black male, that the Republican Party has nothing for me; its values are not mine, and it action over the last 25 years have convinced me that the Party does not, and will not—in the near tern anyway—seriously address the concerns of ALL American equally.

Again actions speak louder and more clearly then words!

David,

It predicted that the liklihood of that families adults getting and keeping jobs would skyrocket, and that the environmental influence of a mixed race middle class neighborhood would modify the families behavior bringing their values into conformity with the rest of the neighborhood regarding upkeep and maintenance of the residence, yard, etc.

All well and good if you just insert one project family into an area surrounded by non-project families. One of the problems of government programs, though, is that they tend to never stop at just one. They will tend to foolishly extrapolate and say that if it worked for one, it will work for the entire project, and then jam an entire project’s worth of families into a suburban residential area, and proceed to simply transplant project problems to the suburbs. Foolishly. Minneapolis did such a foolish thing with a neighborhood in its northwest suburbs, and proceeded to transform beautiful plantation-style homes into destroyed shells of buildings, with a culture not unlike Lebanon at the height of its civil war. And it accelerated urban flight and created a phenomenon of SUBurban flight.

In the long run, I would suggest that there aren’t enough “clean suburbs” to go around in diluting the project influence out of the behavior of welfare families. I would submit that a more active behavior modification process should be alive and functioning, namely, to reward the process of getting jobs and education, with a fuller benefits package than what they would receive by sitting back on the couch and demanding their check simply because they’re sucking oxygen. This would speed up the process whereby former project families become clean suburban income-earning families, and speed the rate at which you’d be ABLE to process families out of the projects (mentally) and into the behavior-modifying environments.

The community engineering you mention looks like a great idea, but I think an incentive-based structure of public assistance could accelerate and magnify that greatness.

Kevin, you comment reminds me of the Hatfield’s and McCoy’s keeping generational feuds going despite the fact that their kids are fooling around behind the wood shed. The way to end racism is to alter one’s behavior - Today! If we brand those who choose not to act as racists today as racists nonetheless, because their parents taught them racist thinking as children, we will never progress.

Your comment demonstrates why racism is still intractible for many !!! But, not for most in the Democratic Party, they got over the Civil War and let it go. Not true of millions in the Republican Party who proudly and defiantly fly the union jack on their tractor trailer fronts, homes, and even state houses. What is obvious - is obvious and can’t be explained away, though many try!

Ciggy said, “The community engineering you mention looks like a great idea, but I think an incentive-based structure of public assistance could accelerate and magnify that greatness.”

Yes it could, if the incentives the government offers are relevant to behavior modification. One thing we learned about behavior mod, is that the reward must be perceived as dependent upon the behavior, and the environment must support the expression of the desired behavior. You can’t ask a ghetto kid to stop screaming curse words on the streets if he will be viewed as weak and vulneratble if he does. The environment must support his sense of security while he ceases screaming curse words on the streets.

That is the flaw of financial incentives by governments. They fail to see the environment as an impediment to learning the desired behavior. Too often such incentives end up reinforcing the undesired behavior regardless of what the brochure accompanying the incentive check says.

But, as you say, if the incentives are perceived as dependent upon modified behavior and that modified behavior does not weaken or otherwise threaten the person, then the behavior mod may be accelerated fairly predictably.

David,

Yes it could, if the incentives the government offers are relevant to behavior modification. One thing we learned about behavior mod, is that the reward must be perceived as dependent upon the behavior, and the environment must support the expression of the desired behavior. You can’t ask a ghetto kid to stop screaming curse words on the streets if he will be viewed as weak and vulneratble if he does. The environment must support his sense of security while he ceases screaming curse words on the streets.

I trust your anthropological analysis of this dynamic regarding curse words, but I do think that behavior mods regarding work and earning income will be easily associated by people if they see the differences in dollar amounts to be had, and under which criteriae. They may not read brochures, but they will “for dayum sure” be reading the checks.

Now the trick is to get these intellectual hating HUD managers out, get some people who are well versed in environmental psychology in, and tie federal funding to states to implementation of such plans for urban renovation and community development if they want federal funds.

The hidden by product of such interactive and blended neighborhoods is a reduction in estranged relations and improved inter-racial relations based on community meetings, common play areas, and homeowner community management.

I was the President of a Homeowner’s Assn. in San Antonio, and was reminded of those studies in college as I worked as mediator between neighbors over disputes. It was a racially mixed neighborhood with little participation in the management of the neighborhood when I was elected. I found by the end of my term, a number of folks commented on how much friendlier the neighborhood had become and how the volume of adjacent neighbor complaints had dropped dramatically.

The difference was not my being elected. The difference was implementation of face to face organization efforts, community projects which needed to be discussed and voted on, and the erection of a centralized adult and children play area for all in the community. Neighborhood watch programs were very valuable in bringing neighbors together as they were now depending on each other for safety and security. It was a fascinating experience watching theory applied successfully.

This was the best side of politics. Where groups of people shared common goals which could not be accomplished without each others support and cooperation. This is why I was inspired by Barack Obama, he seeks those issues which folks have in common and can be accomplished through mutual cooperation. I know it works at the local level, but, I am not sure national politics could produce similar results. Obama apparently is goint to try to find out however.

Bert,

Those 7600+ voters knew damn well who and why they voted for James L. Hart. But, one thing is for sure, if the candidate was gay or lesbian, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

I’d vote for a conservative gay or lesbian candidate, as long as I felt they had the qualifications. There are a few out there… in the closet.

V.,

Bush says that he wants the Republican Party to be one of inclusion, but his actions speak so much louder then his words. How dare he visit a campus that teaches separation of the races and anti-Jewish and then tell me he wants me in his Party. That visit may have been less then an hour but it speaks volumes about the man, his character, his principles, and his Party.

You mean Bob Jones University? I’m not aware that it is an ‘Aryan’ University. Is it?

When Jessie Jackson was running for President way back when, he had my firm support until he referred to New York City as Hyme-town.

I’m glad you make that differentiation. I’ve heard Jessie Jackson speak in person and he does have a gift. It’s unfortunate that he took the path that he did.

I feel as a moderate Black male, that the Republican Party has nothing for me; its values are not mine, and it action over the last 25 years have convinced me that the Party does not, and will not—in the near tern anyway—seriously address the concerns of ALL American equally.

The Republicans party is not monolithic. There are a wide variety of beliefs and ideologies represented. But from your posts I can tell that the Republican Party probably does not represent your views politically but we might eventually find things we could agree on.

I lived in San Antonio myself (stationed there for the Air Force) and saw some neighborhoods very rapidly transformed. Some people who had lived there warned me of certain neighborhoods, and when I got there those neighborhoods weren’t bad at all. I asked a friend who was a San Antonio police officer about the change, and he said a lot of it had to do with community involvement programs with teenagers. They quite simply needed THINGS TO DO that were cool enough for teens to be interested in but not of a criminal nature. Voila. No more shooting up the neighborhood with the “gats”.

These are good examples of what I mean when I say that pure Capitalism without any government involvement is a mistake. I don’t want Soviet breadlines, but then, that’s the bread industry. There’s nothing saying there can’t be some crime reduction programs, urban renewal, etc., of a nature that would benefit all citizens.

I’d even say it like this: the more it looks like core infrastructure or crime prevention or education, the more I’d be willing to involve government in some sort of planning around it. The more it looks like commodities and “breadbasket” goods, the more I’d want to keep it in the private sector.

David, come to think of it, that’s the way to sell it to conservatives: urban renewal as a crime prevention program. That speaks their language well enough.

I agree, Ciggy with everything you said, up to selling it to the Republicans. Too many in that party would scream “Social Engineering” and threaten any such programs. That is why they want private schools, so the social engineering can be done under their philosophy without public scrutiny or majority concensus. Ultimately leading to Skull & Bones elite schools which a good conservative can use to tell whether an applicant has the “proper” education or not.

Make no mistake, there are conservative strategists and think tanks devoting their lives to reengineering this country under more law and order, autocratic, blind faith fellowship mental conditioning from the elementary schools through the Ivy League ones. They at once denounce social engineering but are working diligently to engineer society toward conservative ideology.

Democrats have their plans too, but, aren’t as hypocritical about social engineering.

I like Ralph Naders core philosophy, (if I read it correctly) if its broke, fix it, if ain’t broke, leave it alone. And if it is a religious, philosophical, or ideological debate, take it to church, school, or your local debate society. Government should not be telling people what to think. Only making government efficient in dealing with the problems that no lesser entities can manage.

Dang, David. That sounds like the Democrat’s core philosophy!

Government should not be telling people what to think.

Shouldn’t be, but it is. This is from either direction depending on the school district, where in left-leaning districts it’s an indoctrination of all things American being evil all the time (except when Native Americans or the African slaves are involved); and the right-leaning districts tend to be in a constant quest to find ways to inject prayer into the classroom.

I think that organized indoctrination by biased school curriculae is largely what creates the mindless polarity these days of the “tastes great” versus “less filling” binary mainstream parties.

Each side has an extremely different foundation from the very core of what they even thinks comprises the fabric of reality, and view the ideology of the other side as some form of a mental disease, which by implication must be eradicated to prevent impending doom upon the nation. When translated to school curriculae, the result is a binary crop of students entering college where half of them think 2+2=5 and the other half think 2+2=3. Rival Big Brothers of a duality-based “1984” distopia, and then the college profs take it from there, either to fully launch the students in whatever direction they were headed, or to try to dissuade them from it, depending on the college prof’s own biases.

This is indeed government indoctrination, but rather than the monadic unity of the lessons drilled in by an autocracy, it’s the two party lines espoused by the two mindless parties today.

The result is a house divided against itself in ways that fully eschew logic, and instead of 1 dictator 3,000 miles away, you get what the infamous Tory leader in Boston feared just prior to the Revolution: 3,000 dictators ONE mile away.

A. Pundit, I am sure Republicans would fight for the honor of saying that as well.

Haha! I’m sure! :)

Kevin, you should be ashamed for taking Byrd’s words out of context. In that interview he was discussing the history of events both in the South, North, and in the Congress, when such terms were commonplace.

I swear the way folks on both sides twist and distort the facts to fit their needs is unbelievably self-deceiving. No wonder the divorce rate in this country is 50%. Come to think of it, that is the same as the voting rate. Guess that means about half the folks with a political opinion out there come from those two failed groups. Makes sense. Nothing but bi-partisan self-deceiving defensiveness. Suddenly a lot of comments I read here and there, are understandable in their fall from fact and reality.

Public Schools create a separation of church and state problem by their nature.

Teaching is indoctrination. You cannot avoid it. Public schools, therefore, are indoctrinating. Should the government be in the business of indoctrination?

No, Eric, every parent should be left to educate their own child at home. That will do wonders for our workforce and economy when they reach 18 (couldn’t really say graduate). BTW, might as well start lowering college entrance requirements right away in preparation.

I don’t know, David. Colleges and Universities get federal funding. We should probably do away with those, too. Just to be safe.

A. Pundit, yeah, let the rich folks send their kids to Britain, France, Germany or China for a college education. And they might as well stay there too, because there won’t be many jobs for them here. American business requiring workers with a degree won’t being headquartered here in the U.S. anyway.

Amazing how far a little facetiousness can travel, eh?

You guys! *smirk*

Thomas Jefferson didn’t consider schools indoctrination. He considered them a means of creating an environment of informed discretion on the part of the voting public. The goal should be to inform, and information CAN be limited to the FACTUAL with just a modicum of effort in the screening of curriculae vitae. Sheesh.

At the French lycée I attended, the closest I saw any class get to indoctrination was in a history class the teacher imply ever so subtly that the rise of nation-states out of the medieval monarchies was a good thing. And if you didn’t pay close attention to the tenor of the lectures, you’d miss it. Just about everything else was devoid of a political agenda. And LOGIC was REQUIRED. Imagine that.

Ciggy, absolutely dead right on! Our educational system is rapidly becoming a battleground for moral, ethical, religious, and political ends, and our students constitute the collateral damage that will bankrupt this country if we do not STOP IT, now!

How’s this for a radical compromise, Ciggy. The government enacts a law stating that only pervasive and scholarly information, paradigms and theories devoid of religious or small miniority deviations or derivations are to be included in school curricula. However, any recognized religious organizations, political groups, and minority view organizations which do not constitute a threat to our national security (read advocating overthrow of the government or similarly destructive doctrines) may be permitted to offer after school curricula for up to two hours which is voluntary and requires parents signatures to attend. These organizations must provide fair and equitable recompense back to the school district for facility use, maintenance etc. as a condition of operating their after school program. And finally, the following condition must be met. For any after school organization to be permitted to operate, they must concurrently insure that an opposing or different doctrinal school program sponsor also be available at the same school. (I love that last one!)

I just googled GOP Racist Party and found a number of stories evidencing the title of this article. Wish I had done that in the planning for this article, I would have had even more evidence to provide supporting the fact that those prone to racist remarks are drawn to the Republican Party, including a few Republican office holders and candidates, who forget the Republican PR Credo.

What party was it that created the KKK? What party has kept minorities down? What party has supported LESS than 33% of all civil rights legislation in the past 75 years?

I know this is going to be hard for you to understand Mr. Remer but it is your beloved democrat party that is GUILTY of what I listed above.

It’s too bad that you rely on crack pot partisan sites to support your idiotic views.