Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 07, 2008
La Shawn Barber :: Townhall.com Columnist
Digging Up Democratic Skeletons
by La Shawn Barber
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


[V]irtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat. – Bruce Bartlett

Democrats, seen as the civil rights party, supported slavery, opposed civil rights legislation, instituted the "Black Codes," and created the Jim Crow system. The Republican Party, in contrast, was founded in opposition to slavery, and supported post-Civil War and Civil Rights Movement-era legislation.

"All of the racism that we associate with [the southern] region of the country originated with and was enforced by elected Democrats," writes Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush. In Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past, Bartlett goes deep into the history of the Democratic Party and attempts to set the record straight.

Bartlett discusses the motivations of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson to maintain slavery and how Andrew Johnson ("a Democrat his whole life") tried to block post-Civil War legislation designed to protect newly freed slaves. He includes obscure figures like Senator Benjamin Tillman from South Carolina, whose "consistent theme…was that black men had some sort of compulsion to mate with white women," and Senator Theodore Bilbo from Mississippi, whose "permanent resolution of the race problem" in 1938 was to send blacks back to Africa and/or create a 49th state for them "somewhere in the West."

Woodrow Wilson, a liberal who implemented progressive reforms while in office, also instituted racial segregation throughout the federal government. And Bartlett notes that Wilson's attorney general "did far more to repress free speech and political freedom" than Senator Joe McCarthy, a Republican, ever attempted. But when was the last time Hollywood made a movie about A. Mitchell Palmer?

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had a "reputation for being a progressive on the race issue," wasn't much better on civil rights. He appointed a Klan member to the Supreme Court and ordered the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. Republican Dwight Eisenhower, "conventionally portrayed as having done nothing for blacks during his eight years," passed civil rights bills in 1957 (the first since Reconstruction) and 1960. Eisenhower also sent federal troops to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Bartlett praises Democrat Harry Truman for signing an executive order establishing a presidential committee on civil rights, an unpopular move in the party, but spares none for President John F. Kennedy, who receives far more credit on civil rights than he deserves. Kennedy did nothing substantive on civil rights, contends Bartlett, and what he did do was largely symbolic as he tried to avoid antagonizing Southern Democrats. He credits President Lyndon B. Johnson for "finally repudiating both his own segregationist past and the Democratic Party's" in the wake of Kennedy's assassination.

And what about the so-called Southern strategy? Bartlett calls it a myth. There was no strategy "to carry racist votes through coded messages about crime and welfare, as is often alleged." During his campaign in 1968, President Richard M. Nixon emphasized his support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and picked Spiro Agnew as his vice president, a man reputed to be strong on civil rights.

The shift in Southern voting patterns from Democratic to Republican had to have been about race, right? According to Bartlett, economic changes in the South were the primary factor. During the Democrats' political reign, the South had been the poorest region. As the South's wealth increased, southerners became receptive to Republican messages of low taxes and small government.

People tend to forget that Nixon pushed to desegregate schools, denying federal aid to segregated school districts. "Just one month into his presidency," Bartlett writes, "any idea that Nixon was pursuing a Southern strategy had been thoroughly discredited."

Unfortunately, Nixon also implemented government race preferences.

Bartlett's meticulously researched Wrong on Race concludes with suggestions on how Republicans can reach out to black voters, including connecting on immigration policy and this stunner: getting behind the idea of slavery reparations. Bartlett tries to make the case on legal, public policy, and political grounds.

If reaching out to black voters has to involve reparations race pandering, don't bother. Despite that shocker at the end, Wrong on Race provides ammunition for Republicans fed up with being called racists.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Freelance writer La Shawn Barber blogs at the American Civil Rights Institute blog.
Thank You!!!

Do you have any idea how often college republican clubs are openly described as being inherently racist because they are Republicans?

And as hateful as it is to hear such stuff, we need to be broadcasting the speeches of a certain Senator from West Virginia....

Bilbo and Malcolm X had the same view...
Senator Theodore Bilbo from Mississippi, whose "permanent resolution of the race problem" in 1938 was to send blacks back to Africa and/or create a 49th state for them "somewhere in the West."
=====

This was - and to some extent still is - an arguement kicked around by the radical black left.

*I* don't approve of this, but there are many on the left, and in the black left, who do. Bilbo wasn't alone....

comforting no doubt
In claiming that all significant racists were democrats, one of course has to include Strom Thurmond as one of them. After all he ran a third party candidacy in support of segregation. Of course during the time of the "fictional" Southern strategy, he and his supporters found their homes in the Republican party.

I can understand why black Republicans would seize on this kind of silly history. It is hard to be in a party whose leader decided to announce a candidacy based on States rights in a county whose only previous significant event was the murder of 3 civil rights workers in the name of states rights.

But while there is some truth to the idea that the democratic party was worse on racial issues until the '60s (really only true in the South. Democrats in the north were more liberal before then) it is fantasy that the reverse was not true after the democrats put their capital behind the civil rights act of 1964.

Lon
does Al Gore Sr. and Sen. Fulbright (Bubba's mentor) who both voted against the civil rights act of '64 count? or is that silliness too? They had to be Republicans posing as Democrats. Everybody knows Democrats aren't and coud never be racist, they are the savoirs of black people, lets all bow.

Great!
La Shawn--I admire you so much. Telling it like it is is what we need. Now if someone would explain about the smoke filled rooms of yore and the present ways the democrats steal votes by,disenfranchisement of our overseas servicemen for one. They don't teach it in history anymore.
The newest one in the state of Washington was to count the votes 3 times to the tune of thousands of dollars, until they got them shuffled around or added to until they got the dem. in. Sad.....

How sad
that Nixon passed racist laws. At least in the UK we had no racist and sexist laws until the 1970s when our socialist Labour Party passed laws making it legal to discriminate against whites and men.

Democrats Heading For A Messy Convention

If this happens will the Obama supporters vote for Billary?

HP-The Democrats may be heading for a fine mess.

Because of party reforms in the past and a close race for delegates this year, a nightmare scenario is building for the Democratic National Convention in August: It is easy to imagine that Barack Obama could get to Denver with more pledged delegates than Hillary Clinton, but that she could get the nomination based on the votes of the superdelegates.

READ MORE


http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/democrats-heading- for-a-messy-convention

Now thats rewriting history
President Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Bill I have just handed the south over to the Republican party for the next 50 years, He was of course quite correct. Bartlett is dead wrong in his assumption that it was economics and not race that lead to the change in voting patterns. You should take a look at all the Democrats who changed after the Civil rights bill was passed and read some of the comments made by ex democrats like Sn Jesse Helms when he was cutting his teeth as a commentator on a local TV station. Parties are like a pendulum they change over time. And that has indeed occurred when it comes to race in this country. Anyone who could make such silly assumptions is just a fool.

I've recently been reading up
On the history of the United States in the decades preceding the American Civil War (1861-1865). And it's surprising how the politics of the era shook out.

First of all, Thomas Jefferson was emphatically not "pro-slavery". Rather, he fought a lifelong battle, from the writing of the Declaration of Independence on, to eradiacte it from our society, by appeals to logic when they worked, and attempts to shame its advocates into changing their ways when logic failed. In 1784, he wrote the Plan of Administration for territories north of Lat. 31 North (now AL, MS, TN,and KY), in which it was stated that after 1800 slavery would be illegal in those areas. The clause was rejected by a single vote in the Congress. Jefferson also was largely responsible for the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which established the territories that became OH, MI, IN, and IL, prohibited slavery in that area. It was adopted by Congress over strenuous objections by the existing "slave states".

(go to Pt. 2)

I've been reading up (pt.2)
Now, let's jump forward to 1852, when the Democratic Party was having a "generational fight" almost identical to the one they are having today. The major players in that one were all slavery advocates, whose major bones of contention was how aggressive they should be in demanding that the Fugitive Slave Law should be enforced throughout the nation. They also were demanding the abolition of the 1808 law prohibiting the importation of new slaves from Africa (U.S. Navy ships had been on station off the African coast since the War of 1812 to enforce this by stopping and searching any U.S.-flagged vessel leaving any of the noted slaver ports), and wanted a Federal law passed to support the principle of "nullification", in which a state could refuse to enforce a Federal law the state's government deemed an "over-reaching" of Federal authority- rather as Democrats and other "progressive" elements are doing regarding INS viz. illegal aliens today. (In fact, the fight over illegal immigration overall has eerie echoes of the slavery "debate" that tore this country in two 147 years ago.) Their ultimate intent was to have all anti-slavery statutes abolished throughout the U.S., and to force the "free states" to accept slavery whether they wanted, or needed, the "peculiar custom" or not.

And one of their tools was the "proportionality" principle, in which slaves (who could not vote) were counted as a "fraction" of a person for purposes of apportioning seats in the U.S. House. Much as Democrats dream of using illegal aliens as "undocumented voters" and counting them in the census for the same purpose today.

And the more things change, the more they stay the same.

The study of history can be absolutely fascinating. Especially when you realize how little people have learned from same.


cheers

eon

So, It Must Not Be .........
For all of the Republican efforts to aid blacks with freedoms it results in black votes for Democrats. So what is the problem or question? Black votes for Democrats is because Democrats thrive on taking from the people who earned it and giving the money to those who do not have as much. Thus, welfare. And it certainly is not going away. Irrespective of whether it is Hitlery or Obambi, the pace will pick up in a heartbeat.

A fool, huh, chains?
What say you about LD's satire? Is it not the Dems who pander to and purchase the votes of blacks through subsidies and special set asides? The soft racism of Affirmative Action through the lowering of standards speaks volumes as to what Democrats really believe.

LD - love 'ya
I have to say I like your posts, here or and on MM's site.

I see that some people don't understand, they have to look at the post in a mirror.

If I need to explain this, you would not understand.

Keep up the good work.

Jefferson WAS pro-slavery
I'm sorry eon, but there is no way to paint a slave owner as against slavery.

Jefferson may have said or written a lot of things, but at the end of the day, he still believed in the institution, as proven by his own personal ownership of other people.

Frog
You missed the point of my comments

Pointless
Bartlett is of course right (except about the reparations) but it matters not. Democrats have the inherent inability to recognize reality, or more correctly, they refuse to accept reality as it exists. Sure they are the party of racism, but that is too damned inconvenient a truth for them to recognize, so they simply ignore it. Robert Byrd? Well he doesn't count because Strom Thurmond was a segregationist sixty years ago. The dixiecrats? I've actually had block heads on this site try to tell me that these people became republicans because they shared their racist tendencies. There is no evidence of this but it makes liberals feel good, and after all isn't that the purpose of all of our lives?
The liberals of today do not look at black people as individuals but rather as a substantial voting block they must pander to. They never actually improve the quality of life within the black community, because doing so would make them less dependent on liberals. They see illegal mexican immigrants the same way.
You can point out the obvious all day, if a liberal doesn't want to see it it'll never happen. Remember, the art of liberalism is standing on your head and telling the rest of the world it's upside down.

PRESIDENTIAL ZEAL
ohn Kennedy was the last President elected from the little desk club of 100 in the Senate. Senators; ergo, legislators do not make for effective executives. Decision-making and cutting the cake to get the best results is not the forte' of whittlers and compromisers. There is no putting the butter on both sides of the bread which is a reality few Senators have accepted. The coming Presidential tide is going to be difficult in foreign affairs, economic security, and social well being and I pray that the Good Providence which has guided this wonderful country continues to put zeal and formula in out next President whom ever we do decide.

I believe - in the Catholic Church - someage around 75 years old the Papacy recommends its Cardianls retire. Age and visceral health can well be the crutial issue in the Presidential campaign.

From One Hank To Another...
"Remember, the art of liberalism is standing on your head and telling the rest of the world it's upside down."

This is classic. Everyone should take notes...

The South a History Lesson
The South was uniformly Democratic and uniformly against Civil Rights .... until the Civil Rights bill passed in 1965. At that time, the South became uniformly Republican. People like Strom Thrumond and George Wallace left the Democratic party in 1964 as a result of the Civil Rights bill signed into law by Democratic President Johnson.

Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican nominee for President, voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Bill. S

Ronald Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South"), and ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books. Reagan began his 1980 campaign for President in the South pledging his support for States Rights.

The article above is correct in describing the Democratic party pre-1964. However, it is misleading to exclude the fact that the southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 left the Democratic party over that issue and, following the lead of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, became Republican.

La Shawn Barber's next column...
Next week, La Shawn will be writing a column about the fact that the South wants to go to war with the North and secede from the US.

After that, her next column will be about how the Germans are all out to kill the jews, gays, and anyone else that isn't blonde-haired and blue-eyed.

Well, using La Shawn's logic, it was true so many years ago, so I guess it still must be true today.

La Shawn wants to be relevant, but columns like this show why she's a "freelance" writer and not a well-paid writer.

And today?
It's all well and good that Republicans were the party that did the most to ensure the civil rights of Americans prior to 1965 and if I were voting prior to 1965 I would probably vote Republican.

However, in the intervening 40 years, the Republican party has not been an uncomfortable place for racists to reside. That doesn't mean every Republican is a racist, but in my experience most racists are Republicans (see the difference?).

There are certainly members of the Democratic party that I'm not happy with, not the least of which is Bill Clinton, at the moment, but with people like Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott, George Allen, the Conservative Citizens Council (CCC), Conrad Burns, Ann Coulter (towel heads?), et al, it is difficult for any self-respecting minority to align themselves with this party.

If you don't want minority votes, that's fine, but don't try to act like there's no reason for minorities to avoid your party.

Well said, Georgia Gal
There is a new book out "What hath God wrought" part of the Oxford University series on American history that covers extensively the period 1814-1848. To say that the Democratic of today has any responsibility for what is was a 150 years ago would be like still calling Ronald Reagan Union leading Democrat.

Ron ROTFLMAO

GeorgiaGal writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 9:12 AM
The South a History Lesson

hold up there eon
Jefferson was a man of two minds that somehow lived harmoniously in the same head w/o conflict. He displayed this in his politics-- one mind being the retired statesman Cincinatus, the other burning for the Presidency.

This also was clearly evident in his overall attitude of slavery. He; himself, kept slaves. Yet found the whole institution 'tragic'. He didn't want to see further importation, nor further spread, but he wasn't about to relinquish his 'property.' Many in the Virginia Planter class were no longer interested in importation (they had plenty of slave labor at this point, and the value of their 'property' would only increase with no imporation.)

If you want to look for true southern enlightenment: George Washington's will decreed, upon Martha's death (Martha's family owned Mt. Vernon and the slaves that went along with it,) emancipated his slaves and provided them compensation via the segmented sale of the Mt. Vernon estate.

LaShawn Barber
Failed the bar exam four times and is a recovering alcoholic, hence the gaps in her reasoning.

tubbs
What about today? You have a KKK Grand Wizard as a prominent member in your party. How does one climb to Senator? Why, by having a base of support that is willing to volunteer money and time to elevate you in the party. Hmmm... who would be the folks that would be willing to give up time and treasure to elevate a Grand Wizard in the KKK? Oh yeah, OTHER RACISTS. What party did those racists decide to suppport? Oh yeah, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Who's the party that tells a minority they can't succeed on their own labors, but must still have boost from the govt. as if they are still a child needing mommy to reach the cereal box? THE DEMOCRATS.

Who's the party promises free free free stuff to minority groups for their support? The DEMOCRATS.

The truth of here and now is that there are scathing racists on both side. The difference I find with most conservatives is that we are too busy working and trying to better our lot to worry the color of anybody's skin.

tubbs
Nice statist move. 'I can't engage in the discourse, so I'll shoot the messenger.'

No wonder I have zero respect for your type.

Jack
Because conservatives want people to start thinking for themselves instead of just sheepishly falling into lockstep with what their 'community' thinks. It appears that most minorities suffer of this.

As for my being 'racist' for being against illegal immigration-- that is a crock. I am against illegal immigration on behalf of any American of any descent who is getting screwed over by invaders who's home economy is so screwed up and corrupt that they'll work for a slave's wage here. How many Americans of Hisapanic descent are getting financially destroyed because their earning power is getting crushed. I can tell you Duncan Hunter knows more than a few. Does that make him racist?

Political Nonsense
Ms. Barber and Mr. Bartlett are perpetrating political nonsense. Yes, Southern Democrats (and liberals who caved to them for political support, as FDR did) were responsible for many racist laws and policies. However, these Democrats were conservatives, not liberals.

Ms. Barber and Mr. Bartlett have no historical sense; they don't seem to know that the ideologies of parties are not written in stone. The Republicans who, to their credit, promoted civil rights in the late 1940s and the 1950s were not conservatives; they were moderate or liberal Republicans, precisely the sort now dismissed by conservatives as RINOs. The Senate vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act shows this clearly; the handful of conservative Republicans, including Barry Goldwater, voted against it.

The post Civil War Republicans were big-government interventionists, and Lincoln was the ultimate example of this sort of Republicanism. The Confederacy was the product of a conservative revolt against the United States, in the name of states rights, constitutional originalism (what else was the Dred Scott decision, after all?), and economic interest (slavery was profitable).

In recent times, the Democrats transformed, and most really conservative Dems were marginalized or (in Congress) became Republicans. The Republicans moved to the Right, shedding most of their moderates and almost all of their liberals.
Thus, the Democratic Party, since the mid 1960s, has been the pro-civil rights party, while the conservatism that became predominant among Republicans had no room for the kind of liberal social engineering represented by civil rights legislation.

KL-- Try actually reading the column.
"Woodrow Wilson, a liberal who implemented progressive reforms while in office, also instituted racial segregation throughout the federal government. And Bartlett notes that Wilson's attorney general "did far more to repress free speech and political freedom" than Senator Joe McCarthy, a Republican, ever attempted. But when was the last time Hollywood made a movie about A. Mitchell Palmer?"

Where is the your claim of 'reframing as a civil rights champion'?


IGoCommando
My attack on Barber was based on previous experience with her.

"You have a KKK Grand Wizard as a prominent member in your party" Robert Byrd?

"Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Byrd

That said, I would never vote for Robert Byrd and I have never voted for him. Further, Byrd is the exception to the rule in the Deomocratic Party while Limbaugh, Coulter, Allen, and the Conservative Citizens Council are ubiquitous, unashamed, and welcome within your party's ranks.

"Who's the party that tells a minority they can't succeed on their own labors, but must still have boost from the govt. as if they are still a child needing mommy to reach the cereal box? THE DEMOCRATS."

That's your interpretation of civil rights and helping the needy. Mine is different. I believe that when poor people fall on hard times someone should try to help them. You obviously feel differently. I believe that some groups in this country have faced and continue to face invidious discrimiantion and that this should not go unaddressed. You feel differently.

There are scathing racists on both sides and I believe that the scathing racists in the republican party are not made to feel unwelcome.

And brother if I earned respect from someone with your beliefs, I would seriously have to check myself, so I don't take your zero respect as any kind of loss. Quite the contrary actually.

Northern Democrats
The comments that the northern Democrats are more liberal toward blacks rights is flat out false. Just look at the primary results. The Democratic Party has lived this lie to get votes and it has worked. They are for black rights as long as they can keep them in check. Now comes the dilemma, the country has it's first real black candidate that could win the Democratic nod and they are scared to death. If they attack him, they look like racist and then they say they support him in public to be politically liberal correct but they vote otherwise in the booth. By the way, the huge Democratic support for Hillary in Florida is retired northern Democrats. If the Democratic Party cheats Obama out of the nomination at the convention it will devastate their party and their stranglehold on the black vote.

Lew's Wishful Thinking
I have seen this delusion in print several times in various places. Teh African American community is not going abandon the Democrats if Obama doesn't get the nomination. He has been competitive in almost evey race and will certainly be offered the VEEP slot, if he wants it.

Keep wishin' Lew.

Commando Boy
If that is the point, then why aren't Republcians makign that case, instead of the historically ignorant argument about the past?

tubbs
"That's your interpretation of civil rights and helping the needy..."

No, that's my interperetation of affirmative action. Civil rights, are rights that ALL Americans posess, and nobody's civil rights are superior to another's. Affirmative Action is the antithesis of civil rights.

I define the 'needy' as those who 'need' help because they can not do for themselves. You're color of your skin does not define how able your body is. Those who truly need help, should be given help.

Funny, I manage to give an ounce of respect to other Statists who can manage a competent discourse and not fall back on the old 'the messenger once did something self-destructive in their life' nonsense. Agreement doesn't play that big of a factor.

As for Bob 'KKK' Byrd. There are some things that shouldn't just be apologized away and rewarded with a top seat in our policy-making body. I like to think the promotion of lynching minorities should fall into that category. But what do I know, I'm just a heartless conservative.

Funniest Part
the funniest part about Republicans "enlightening" the rest of us about the "true nature" of the Democratic Party is how condescending the argument is. Like minorities can't figure out for themselves who is racist and who is not.

I'm quite familiar with the history of the political parties in this country and which people I perceive to be racist. Having LaShawn barber or some other Republican saddle up next to me to tell me that I can't tell who is racist and who is not, is asinine.

Jack
The argument isn't historically ignorant. Irrelevant in a number of ways perhaps, but not ignorant.


IgoCommando
"Affirmative Action is the antithesis of civil rights"

Obviously, we disagree, (and I suspect, JFK, Nixon, LBJ, MLK, and a host of others who have supported affirmative action would also have disagreed with you).

So who have you convinced here? Whose mind have you changed? Whose vote have you acquired?

You and your cohorts present an argument that minorities shouldn't look at Republicans as the "racist" party, presumably to help steer some of minorities' votes toward your party.

But at the end of the day your line of reasoning boils down to "my interpretation of history is more accurate than yours so you should vote for me."

Very persuasive.

Ms. Barber
I was with you right up to the end of your article. The problem that I have with the whole concept of reparations is that reparations were paid after the civil war. Part of what Andrew Johnson was impeached over were those reparations. Each slave was offered a choice of 40 acres and 2 mules or a ticket to the new country of Liberia which was founded specifically to repatriate former slaves.

To demand or even ask for reparations again smacks of the return of a blackmail artist who won't let the mark off the hook even though the mark has paid up already.

IGO
Ok,

I thought historically ignorant was better than calling it a damn lie, but whatever works for you.

As for your interpretation of affirmative action, it seems quite beside the point. What would matter is what the minority communities the Republicans are trying to reach think.

This kind of damn lie/historically ignorant argument won't help.

Re Tubbs:
Let me get your argument straight. History is irrelevant in the context of racism. And any body who denies you a special, extraordinary consideration based solely on the color of your skin is racist, right? Hmmm, I always thought the goal was a color blind society where you won't be dinged or elevated because of something as meaningless as the melanin content of somebody's skin. Sorry, but your way smacks of racism from both the point of view of the privileged and those granting the boon to the obedient slave.

Re: King Liberal
Hmmm, so by your statements the party which includes and both expects and treats minorities as equals is racist because they don't suppress minorities, paying minorities off with trinkets to get those same minorities to work hard to line the pockets of wealthy politicians....

It's your contention that educated minorities are too stupid to see the Democratic party as one that panders for minority votes but repeatedly fails to deliver on anything that might make those minorities actually equal? I think you're quite wrong and I think most liberals have that kernel of racism buried deep in their hearts where they have to help those poor child like brown children. Guess what they aren't children and many aren't poor. The only thing that differentiates a minority is the color of his skin which you seem to think makes a minority inferior. I would suggest, sir, you are a racist.

Lew
You stole my thunder! Justice Clarence Thomas in his wonderful autobiography recalls the subtle yet more cruel and pervasive racism he encountered in the north when he went to Yale. If one looks at the primary results map, it shows that nearly all of the liberal bastions went for Hillary. The south didn't seem to have a problem voting for Obama, even in the voting booth. Remember, after NH, the pundits opined that white voters who said they would vote for Obama in polls, didn't actually do it once they were in the privacy of the voting booth.

The fix has been in for Hillary and the Democratic Party only ran Obama as a patsy to her. Their intent was to make it seem as though Hillary was getting the nomination legitimately, while being able to tout their party's diversity and equality. What they hadn't counted on however was the tremendous reaction to Obama and now they are in a conundrum.

They will most likely have to put him on the ticket as VP, which assuredly Hillary does not want. He would, after all, eclipse her historic run and because of his superior charisma would take attention away from her. Poor Hillary, this is supposed to be her year, her history and her legacy. Unfortunately, she will have to share it with another.

POLMsgt
You had to pick two people who have been dead for a couple of decades to try to prove the point that democratic racism isn't a thing of the past?

Don't you know that you are supposed to cite Robert Byrd, whose racism is further in the past, but at least he is still alive to create the pretense that there is some balance in the current parties.

Maldain
"History is irrelevant in the context of racism."

No, but the present actions of the Republican party trump it's actions in the past. I'm voting in 2008 not 1958.

"And any body who denies you a special, extraordinary consideration based solely on the color of your skin is racist, right?"

Wrong. Affirmative Action programs in school admissions allows race to be taken into account (in the same way that family history, national origin, income, and a host of other factors are also taken into account). Affirmative Action programs in employment seek to present opportunities for those who are and have historically been excluded. Those are neither extra special nor extraordinary considerations.

Mundain
As I wrote to commando boy, what conservatives think about Affirmative Action is pretty near irrelevant, if your intent is to avoid the demographic onslaught facing you in the next 20 years.

You should spend you time trying to understnad what other people think about affirmative action. For example, an MIT study strongly supported the presence of significant racism in American hiring practices: resumes with identifiably African American names resulted in 50% fewer interviews than identical resumes with more standard names.

You can whine about AA being a problem all you want, but it won't convince anybody facing that kind of economic barrier.


*sigh*
"Republican Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican nominee for President, voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Bill."

Have you read why, or do you think automatically voting against something or disagreeing is equivalent to hate? The issue was one of being Un-Constitutional in the respect to property rights. It violates the person's individual rights (I know how collectivists hate the concept of the individual) by forcing them to allow people on their property (forget color or race) at the point of a gun. Reagan also opposed the act as it went against his core principles of liberty and conservatism. Government should not "force" anyone to do any thing that benefits only a specific group. Is this not the argument we continually have about "special interests" and lobbyists? How is it any different when collectivists classify a specific block of people then grant or diminish rights and subsidies for the purposes of pandering or reaching a "politically correct" consensus?

If you cannot see that the action of taking a group of people and classifying them and then using that classification to either bestow or revoke rights then you are not treating all citizens equal as in, "liberty, and justice for all." Definition from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist

By grouping people and promoting the differences in the cultures as reason to pander, subsidize, or pass laws benefiting specifically a specific group is promoting an agenda based entirely upon race, therefore practicing the act of discrimination by citing a specific group and granting special priveledges to a specific group is just as bad, or is on the same token, as writing laws that discriminate against the opposition of the group you are trying to help.

Embrace the individual, never the group and noone can be discriminated against in either way.

tubbs' 9:56 post, etc.
So by your reasoning the author is as qualified as John F Kennedy, Junior to be a commentator, publisher, or liberal icon. Actually more qualified, as Ms. Barber is still alive.

Re: Barry Goldwater's vote vs. civil rights bill; he was FOR racial equality, he was AGAINST federal government legislating areas the Constituition forbade.

Much as I dislike Ron Paul personally,at least he has read the Constituition and respects it.
Someone please tell me how the "interstate commerce clause" can be interpreted to allow Federal Gov't power over speech, DUI limits, in-state speed limits, local education policy, or any other such issues.

george, you miss the point
"Government should not 'force' anyone to do any thing that benefits only a specific group."

You're ignoring the fact that a specific group was being DENIED benefits.

As soon as you engage in commerce on your property you are within the sphere of government--the Constitution explicitly gives the government a role in regulating commerce. In fact, the government gives commerce special privileges (such as deducting expenses for tax purposes), so it's right to also enforce responsibilities.

Re: tubbs
So let me get this straight, adding points to the admission score in college because of the color of a person's skin isn't racist but saying all applicants should be treated equally is racist? Sorry but that's completely contrary to logic. What you are in effect saying is that those little brown children need your help to succeed at anything they try. I would say that's a very racist attitude. I would suggest that skin color isn't relevant to the scores on a college entrance exam it's whether the student in question studied and worked his or her keister off in school. You seem to think that because of the color of a persons skin they shouldn't have study as hard or do as much work...as long as they obey and vote properly. Sorry I don't buy the argument.

George Is The Point
George presents a perfectyy legitimate way of looking at the political landscape. But it is only one way of seeing things.

To George, refusing to rent an apartment to a black family because they are black is an acceptable practice, at least legally and constitutionally.

However, the black family which suffers that indignity experiences it as racism and oppression. Turning to Conservatives and or Republicans for redress, that family will get George's response. Turning to Democrats or Liberals, the family will get the response of fbear, i.e. it's covered under the COnstitution and we are goign to deal with it.

Both might be legitimate opinions, but who in their right mind would suggest the black family is going to vote Republican?

There was a really racist piece
on PBS last night. This was nominally an exploration of the background of well known black people.

The black moderator said that the end of Reconstruction (where the compromise was made to make Hayes President and allow Confederates to vote) was represented as Republicans deserting their black supporters in the South. What they didn't say was that it was a decision made to end a deadlock between Republicans and Democrats in the Congress. They left it there; they did not point out it was the white Democrats in Congress and in the Southern states that perpetrated the denial of rights on blacks, not Republicans. It was a bunch of blacks trying to out Liberal the Senate.

I guess Lenin was right; once you control the education system you can make people believe any lie you tell.

Re: Jack
Well, now I'm curious what were those identifiably african-american names? I really am curious because I'd be willing to bet you'd get similar results with identifiably white names like Billy-Bob or Jelmer. Sorry, but it's not a name game in private industry. And anybody who turns away qualified applicants because their skin color is foolish. Last time I checked being an idiot wasn't illegal it was just dumb.

I suspect that the study done a MIT which again must be questioned on how many resumes were sent out and to what businesses and how were the resumes matched to the job openings. I'm curious as statistics and analysis are part of what I do and I know how easily the person who's running a study like that can skew the results toward their expectation.

I've blogged that 1st paragraph
on a dozen TH columns. Dems. created the Civil War by seceding from the Union, created the KKK, instituted segregation/Jim Crowe, invented poll taxes and literacy tests for blacks, and filibustered against the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Actrs of 1964.

Dems. also led us into WW I, which Am. opposed so much that we didn't send troops to Europe until 1917 (started 1914) to end the conflict in 1918.

FDR actually was lucky to get WW II, as his 19th C. socialism in the 1930s here. The war finally ended the Great Depression.

Truman took us into Korea, and Ike ran on a "bring the boys home" platform in 1952.

JFK and Johnson promoted the Vietnam War, despite the news media constantly calling it "Nixon's War" and if it weren"t for the MSM, we would've won that war.

Dems. are terrible with history beause they subscribe to leftist Newspeak that changes history whenever it's convenient.

Mundain
You don't buy the argument because you have constructed a false argument that you already know you don't buy.

First off, you have interpreted anythign which considers race to be racist. That is your definition, not mine.

Your simplistic argument does not include the fact that in a selective school environment, many factors go into an admission decision. It is not, and has never been, a process of selecting the person with the highest SAT scores or the best high school grades.

Musical and/or artistic capability, leadership, athletic prowess, family wealth, family connections, geographic origin and a host of other factors play in. It's perfeclty legitimate to allow race to be one of those.

Zero Personal Responsibility
Hasnt't fifty years of democratic rule in Washington DC taught everyone that government promises of the good life for all leads to nothing but murder and mayhem? Isn't it obvious that without personal responsibility you end up with 75% of your children asking who's my daddy and the man with the most status is your local cocaine dealer and your mayor is a snorter? Without a strong family unit the social fabric is easily torn and you end up with the murder capital as the nation's capital! All I hear from Hillary and Obama is more of the same big government remedies for all our problems. Do we need more of this type of thinking in our nation?

Re: Jack
Your apartment anology is an interesting one. How would the Democrats respond if the colors of the parties were reversed? We both know the answer to that it would be that's the right of the landlord. Which means the Democratic party is basically a racist institution as it has been since it's inception.

The fact that a number of minorities don't mind trampling the rights of another to get what the minority wants doesn't make it correct it just demonstrates that a number minority individuals are both racist and greedy.

Jvette
I still have hope that with Bill's or Hillary's temper and things not going as they planned with the cakewalk through the primaries, one of them is going to make the mistake of opening their mouths without the scripted polled answers they have used throughout their careers and step into a mess that even the spinmasters can't fix. I also believe that Obama and his wife are too strong to bow down to her highness with the VP spot. Richardson could secure the Latino vote for her.

Re: Jack sorry you're wrong on that
I consider anything that considers race as a basis for granting or denying rights to an individual. You on the other hand seem to think it's a great idea to use race as the basis for such decisions. I don't and I think that doing so is racist.

Mundain
This is a news story which does a pretty good job of describing the study. You'd have to track down any further details on your own. The story, at least, does provide the names. Carrie vs. Aisha, as an example.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/29/national/main5756 85.shtml

But it may well be the same argumetn I've already made. You might say "so what"? But the question for these purposes isn't what YOU think, the question is how do African Americans experience it.

Be A Maverick! No Votes For McCain!

The Stupid Party

The RNC wants an amnesty candidate.

Don't vote for one.

Another amnesty will result in Democrat majorities for decades, or until they are supplanted by the La Raza Party, why doesn't the RNC know that? How stupid do you have to be to import voters for the opposition at the same time you alienate your own voters? Nominating any of the amnesty supporters is a losing proposition, we will not support them. If the GOP intends to surrender our sovereignty and abandon the rule of law, they will find in November 2008, that they still have their big money/cheap labor donors, but they do not have voters. GOP-RIP

Loyal Dem looks in the mirror
Your post confirms the story that Democrats are closet bigots and the biggest hypocrites ...they give black people hand-outs because they are incapable of competing with whites is a bunch of baloney. All those so-called good things that Democrats have instituted to give blacks a break are inherently RACIST…and the other set asides in the name of multiculturalism is the new form of Apartheid….known in the U.S as segregation.

“Democrats have also fought to keep black culture intact and free from white influence. Racist conservatives admonish blacks for their high illegitimacy rates, high crime rates, and high drop out rates. Democrats, on the other hand, reassure blacks that these elements of their culture are what give them that special sense of diversity, and they fight to help black communities retain such characteristics.”

High illegitimacy, rates, high crime rates and high drop out rates are all results of the amoral everything and anything goes culture of low expectations championed by the democrats. They have used Marxist methods to control the minds of blacks, having them believe that there is no other God but the Democrats…... If you follow me I will rob somebody else and give you everything for free.

To even write that these destructive things which affect millions of lives and the country at large are elements of Black cultures shows your own disdain, arrogance and delusion of being superior. Democrats in their hatred and envy of people who are industrious and treasure the free market economy of capitalism (they don’t need slaves and free labor) use black people as the have-not pawns and perpetuate an underclass to maintain their position of power.

You said it!

bah..
FBear: Being denied something by a private business is not the responsibility of government to correct. It is the responsibility of the market. If I choose not to serve a specific block of people in my establishment the establishment across the street can and will serve them which will possibly force me to change my mind via competition in the market. Now, when government does it then the state is legislating thought and morality and that is not their place as it infringes upon individual rights.

Jack: insuating that I am a racist because I refuse to adopt the liberal/democrat/collectivist mantra that all people are part of a group that needs to be adressed specifically is foolish and serves my point. Automagically I am a racist who doesn't care about blacks(by your above example). Once again refusing to put aside the emotion of the issue and look at the cold hard facts, you fail to see that the mere act of classification defines a premise by which people can be used and/or abused. That base concept of classification is in itself the base for RACISM, you cannot divorce the base from the idea.


LoyalDem just got another one :)
HAHAHAHAA It NEVER gets old :)

maldain, you're wrong
"Your apartment anology is an interesting one. How would the Democrats respond if the colors of the parties were reversed? We both know the answer to that it would be that's the right of the landlord."

No, it's still wrong. You'll notice that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't say "Black" or "African American" or "White" or "Caucasian", it says "race". It's just as wrong, and illegal, to deny white folks housing because of their race as it is to deny black folks.

The thing is, though, this country doesn't have a history of systematic discrimination, preceded by enslavement, of white folks as it does with black folks.

Tell me, were there racial quotas in the Birmingham police and fire departments when Bull Connor was in charge?

Oh, by the way, the segregationists were perfectly willing to deny private property rights when it suited their purposes. Look at the attacks on the Freedom Riders. Look at the arrest of Senator Glen Taylor for attempting to speak at the Southern Negro Youth Conference.

Again, it doesn't matter that the segregationists were Democrats, what matters is that they were CONSERVATIVES, and, for the most part, the segregationists switched to the Republican Party, because that's the home of conservatives.

Maldain
If it were the case that a significant number of white people were trying to rent apartments from black people and being denied that opportunity because they were white, you might have a case.

That is why history is a big part of this discussion. It is not and has never been the case. Were it so, then the entire landscape of the culture would be different. Asking what Democrats would do in a completely different world is meaningless.

It verges on something beyond meaningless to take that hypothetical and then conclude, as you do, that the answer means Democrats are racist. Rhetorically and logically, that's loony.




The parties reversed...
While I am certainly not one to make excuses for either of the party's shortcomings, the inanity of this position is so ridiculous that it's breathtaking. Remember when Bush said before a bunch of minorities that the Republicans were the party of Lincoln? The response should have been, you're right, until 1964 you 'tard. One only needs to look at which party attracts the majority of the "bubba" vote for lack of a better term to see where most of the die hard racists ended up going once the Civil Rights Act was passed. It's also telling the a democrat hasn't carried all of the South since that point, whereas they previously always had. This article is akin to taken someone who is now on the straight and narrow and looking back into his past to say to everyone "see, he's not a good guy, he used to do heroin." Please get a grip, a clue, and a mirror.

Liberals are racist in two
directions: they "pity" people of color and treat them like children: gov't gimmes, social educational promotion, affirmative action, just social promotion for adults.

On the other hand, liberals do these things because they "know" they are superior to all those "poor" dark people.

And liberals are busy naking them poorer. In 1960, 90% of black families were intact and children within wedlock. Now, 85% of urban minotiry children are born without wedded parents and the welfare laws keep most responsible black men out of family life. Single black women are the poorest segment of the poor.

It's only liberals who control the ed. system, and you can see how they treat urban blacks; rotten schools, little education, endless excuses, and perpetual cries for more money. The ATF pres. of DC not long ago cared so much for DC students (who have the lowest NAEPs of any system in the US) by embezzling 100s of 1000s of dolars in union funds for her personal use: cars, home decorating, vacations, all those things bureaucrats are so deserving of.

That's how liberals care about the minority poor.

tubbs, remember the Bakke case?
Bakke was denied admission to the University of California's medical school because the school had set aside a certain number of slots strictly for minorities. They weren't looking for the best and the brightest. They consistently allowed less qualified applicants to obtain the few slots that were available to students.

The admissions board actually two completely separate admissions standards. One for regular students and one for minorities. How then, can one NOT question whether if the minority doctor who is tending to you is truly qualified or one that received a special accomodation? But then, I guess you'd just call me a racist for thinking that.

Renny, your take on history...
is very simpleminded to say the least. Just to clarify though, our Viet Nam involvement began with Eisenhower following the French pullout. Then there is that old Con trick blaming the MSM for all their faults and failures. The funny thing is, the Cons keep push for consolidation of all media into fewer and fewer hands, go figure.

Ron ROTFLMAO

renny writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 12:28 PM
I've blogged that 1st paragraph

Renny, by your arguments....
I suspect you were the victim of a substandard education as well. Perhaps you have forgotten about the school board in PA, the majority of whm belonged to the extreme right and pushed to get the school curriculum to acknowledge creationism/"Intelligent Design". The people of that town rose up and threw out every single one of them.

Ron ROTFLMAO

renny writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 1:06 PM
Liberals are racist in two
directions: they "pity" people of color and treat them like children: gov't gimmes, social educational promotion, affirmative action, just social promotion for adults.

On the other hand, liberals do these things because they "know" they are superior to all those "poor" dark people.

And liberals are busy naking them poorer. In 1960, 90% of black families were intact and children within wedlock. Now, 85% of urban minotiry children are born without wedded parents and the welfare laws keep most responsible black men out of family life. Single black women are the poorest segment of the poor.

It's only liberals who control the ed. system, and you can see how they treat urban blacks; rotten schools, little education, endless excuses, and perpetual cries for more money. The ATF pres. of DC not long ago cared so much for DC students (who have the lowest NAEPs of any system in the US) by embezzling 100s of 1000s of dolars in union funds for her personal use: cars, home decorating, vacations, all those things bureaucrats are so deserving of.

That's how liberals care about the minority poor.

Syler
You have a problem if you have a problem with a black woman telling it like it is. Ms. Barber is hopefully well-paid for her work, because she can afford to be free-lance.

Recess is over, now go back to class.

Syler
You have a problem if you have a problem with a black woman telling it like it is. Ms. Barber is obviously well paid for her work, and deservedly so, because she can AFFORD to be free-lance.


Lew
I think that unfortunately Hillary already has the Latino vote pretty well secured. You may be right about Michelle Obama though. I don't know which will be a stronger pull on her, the history of being the first black man and woman on the national ticket or her pride. She was way more offended by the Clinton attacks on her husband. But, the lure of history can be strong.

It's telling too, the way the Clintons and Democrats played the animosity between blacks and latinos. I don't understand why that animosity exists, but I know it to be real.

I grew up in the segregated south, left there in the 70's and returned to visit my hometown in the 90's. All my life, the blacks had lived on the other side of the tracks, but there they were cohabitating with the whites throughout town. Looking back now from an adult perspective, while the society as a whole was racist, individuals were not. There were many blacks my parents and grandparents had great affection and deep respect for, but the paradigm of segregation was accepted by both sides. No one thought to fight it or change it, until brave men, black and white stood together to.

I think it is unfair to say that simply being a conservative or liberal makes one racist. I think that there is genuine caring on both sides for the opportunity for all Americans to enjoy the fruits of this nation.

To me the major differences between the parties is how to go about improving society for everyone. For the left, the perfect society is imposed through control from the top down. For the right, a good society is built from the bottom up, founded on good, upright responsible citizens.


How would the right...
organize an Army based on this principle. All you would get is a bunch of people running scattershot in all directions with loaded guns. Are you now going to say that guidance from the top is only good for the things a conservative believes in?

Ron ROTFLMAO

To me the major differences between the parties is how to go about improving society for everyone. For the left, the perfect society is imposed through control from the top down. For the right, a good society is built from the bottom up, founded on good, upright responsible citizens.

Jack
"The question at hand here is why Republicans are spending so much time trying to convince minorities, mainly black Americans, that the Democrats are racists when it is 100% clear they do not experience the culture in the same way you do."

Oh, so what about people like Bill Cosby, Alan Keyes, Dr. Sowell, Justice Thomas, et al who are saying the same things as conservatives on black issues?
Or to your way of thinking, is it only socialist black demagogues the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farakhan (sp?) can speak on black issues?

"But why would you expect a black person who has been told to get out of the lunch counter at Walgreens to agree with you?"

Talking about living in the past; when was the last time a black person was told to get out of the lunch counter at Walgreens, or any other place?

A couple of points
maldain writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 12:18 PM
Re: tubbs
So let me get this straight, adding points to the admission score in college because of the color of a person's skin isn't racist but saying all applicants should be treated equally is racist? Sorry but that's completely contrary to logic."

I guess you'd rather argue with a straw man than address anything i actually said. Good luck with that style of argument. If you could point out where I said anything remotely resembling what you've attributed to me, I'll eat my hat.

Bakke and FROG
The Bakke case applied a quota system in admissions that is pretty atypical of college admissions on the whole and its quota system was rightly construed by the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution. The Bakke case also affirmed that affirmative action (without the use of quotas) IS CONSTITUTIONAL. So thanks for making my point for me. Affirmative Action has been affirmed pretty consistently to be lawful under the constitution (Adarand, Bakke, Gratz, Grutter) and not racist at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_C alifornia_v._Bakke

Conservative Liberal...
I live in a "bubba" state and it has elected Democrats since the beginning of statehood. In fact, aside from a smattering of Republican governors over the years, I think only 2 over the last 40 years, Democrats have ALWAYS controlled the state house. And people in Kentucky wonder why they consistently ranks near the bottom of states in terms of education and business opportunity.

Living in the Past?
"Talking about living in the past; when was the last time a black person was told to get out of the lunch counter at Walgreens, or any other place?"

Denny's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denny%27s#Controversy
"In San Jose, California, several black teenagers were refused service unless they agreed to pay in advance (Smith, 1996). This was the first recorded incident of such events.[2][3]
Six Asian-American Syracuse University students visited a local Denny’s restaurant late at night. They waited over 30 minutes as white patrons were regularly served, seated, and offered more helpings. They began to complain to management and to their server regarding the situation. They were then forced to leave the establishment by two security guards (called by Denny’s management). Then, according to the students, a group of white men came out of Denny's and attacked the group,[4] shouting racial epithets. Several of the students were beaten into unconsciousness.[5][6][7]
Six African-American Secret Service agents visited a Denny’s restaurant in Annapolis, Maryland. They were forced to wait an hour for service while their white companions were seated immediately upon entering (Guillermo, 1997).[8]
An African-American Denny’s customer was told that he and his friends had to pay up front at the counter upon ordering their meals. He questioned the waitress: "We asked the waitress about it and she said some black guys had been in earlier who made a scene and walked out without paying their bill. So the manager now wanted all blacks to pay up front." (Ferraro, 1995"

Cracker Barrel?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/2004-05-07-cracker- barrel_x.htm


Loyal Dem looks in the mirror-part 2
Indoctrination is so rampant and democrats are very good in manipulation and corrupting the minds of people especially black people who because of their history in the US are so gullible to believe that they need hand-outs from those so-called good white people to get ahead in live.

Thank you for admitting that Democrats who pretend to care about black people in fact don’t recognize them as individual human beings who are capable of taking care of themselves but “beast of burden” that can not compete with us whites who are superior but use them as political pawns and modern slaves in their fight for power against Conservatives and Republicans.

It is time to for loyal democrats to take a look at themselves instead of pointing the finger at Conservatives/Republicans who are at least honest enough to admit their short comings and say what they really think.

I hate to burst your bubble but you brought the genie out and it is going back in the bottle.
Donkeys never learn but Elephants never forget!




Now that's a lethal combination...
Jack is a socialist, and a racist.

Tell me Jack, why do you embrace policies that discriminate on the basis of race? Isn't racial discrimination directly against what MLK and the civil rights movement was all about? Do you feel that minorities are somehow inferior, and need special assistance?

Socialism is nothing more than government oppression and control of citizens. It is antithetical to freedom and liberty. What is it about freedom that scares you? Why do you want inefficient, corrupt government bureaucrats to have more power than ordinary citizens?

Capitalism requires nothing from you, friend. You can choose not to work for another, and instead work for yourself. You don't have to buy what the business people sell, and you can create your own products (many do - ask any Quaker).

If pandering and demagoguery are what trips your buzzer, then by all means stay on the democrat plantation. Massa Clinton and Massa Obama will oooh and ahhhh you for it, even though they won't respect you in the morning.

I would encourage every freedom loving black American to consider casting off the shackles of the party of liberal socialists, and switch to republican. We'd love to have you aboard as equal partners.

goatlockerloungelizard
Funny stuff:

"I would encourage every freedom loving black American to consider casting off the shackles of the party of liberal socialists, and switch to republican."

Yeah, after calling us socialists, racists, and implying that we're too stupid to pick our own party, how could anyone resist such a tempting offer?

tubbs, you still don't get it ...
and apparently neither does the SCOTUS. ANY consideration of race, even if it's just one factor in one hundred, still has elements of racism. Period. You can attempt to justify it all you want, that doesn't make it right.

You left out "freedom loving"
Tubbs. That's a pretty clear qualifier. If that doesn't describe you, stick with those that condescend and pander to you - the democrats. You deserve each other.

The problem
The problem LaShawn and others are having is this: You can't convince anyone to be on your side by saying that the other side is bad. You have to prove that your side is good! Like now! Not 40 years ago!

That's why Barack Obama is pulling so many independents and yes even some Republicans. When you appeal to the best in people you tend to be a lot more persuasive tahn when you point fingers and appeal to the worst in people.

If you all were arguing that Republicans have common values with Blacks or that Republicans will help improve the lives of Black people or that Republicans are committed to an anti-racist agenda, you'd have a lot more success than saying Democrats are the REAL racists.

You got more flies with honey or something along those lines.

The difference between Modern Ds and Rs
Modern Democrats are willing to admit the racism that has been in their party in the past. Of course, it's possible that the fact that the worst of it is 30 - 40 years old may make it a little easier to face.

Modern Republicans, however, are much less willing to face the racism that's in their past--"Saint" Ronald's talking about "states' rights" in a place known mostly for the murder of three civil rights workers, Jesse Helms' use of race-baiting in campaign ads, and the race-baiting of many current right-wing talk show hosts.

FROG and Goat
"FROG writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 2:05 PM
tubbs, you still don't get it ...
and apparently neither does the SCOTUS."

So I take it you've been serving on the bench for quite some time now, huh? You think any consideration of race is impermissible, the laws of this land and those that interpret them appear to disagree with you. I'll stick with SCOTUS on this one thanks.

And this, goatlockerloungelizard, is really what it all comes down to isn't it?

"stick with those that condescend and pander to you - the democrats. You deserve each other."

Thanks, I will, now stop trying to convince myself and other Blacks to do otherwise. You all don't really want Black people in your party. And that's fine with me. I'm not sure why you all are pretending that it's not fine with you.

Where's the beef?
What policies will Obama champion as president? How can anyone know for sure? He speaks in meaningless cliche.

But we do know his voting record. He is extremely liberal - a socialist.

But while he's taking more of your freedoms by staking a larger government claim on your labor (much as indentured servants endured 150 years ago) through higher taxes, and taking away your choices in healthcare because some folks think you should pay their doctor bills, maybe he'll make you like it anyway through the power of his sparkling and positive personality.

Leftist delusions
As usual every Leftist denies history because it does not support their preconceived assumptions. The facts are the Democrats fought against civil rights for blacks and they continue to fight against equal treatment for blacks. Their policies seek to keep them on the "plantation."
"We're for Affirmative Action." Translation - "It is obvious that blacks can not compete on the same standards as others because they are inferior. Therefore the must vote for us to protect them."
"We want to give 'undocumented' workers their just deserved rights." Translation - "We see another minority group to enslave that will further entrench us in power."

Conservatives look at people based on ability. The Left looks at there race, sex, creed etc. etc. Look at how the Left demonizes anyone of black decent who leaves the liberal plantation. Clearance Thomas, Bill Cosby, Condolezza Rice, Colin Powell.

Who does the Left praise? Al Franken and Jesse Jackson, who are two of the biggest racist out their. The Grand Wizard of the KKK.

I'll stand by the history of Lincoln's party. The history we are writing today will show that Republicans are still fighting for the dignity and respect of the black community.

tubbs
You are awful ignorant or stupid or a damn liar, i don't know which.
I would suggest you try harder to learn and express facts based on reality & understanding.
The socialist party(once democrats) are using my hard earned money to by votes from the very ignorant of society & I and millions of others are getting tired of it. GOT THAT!!!

so, tubbs, now you think ...
that the SCOTUS is infallible? So a 5-4 decision means that the other four can't have a dissenting opinion? I never said that what the SCOTUS determines isn't valid law. But I do think they are human and get it wrong sometimes.

And to your question, YES, I do believe the laws of this land state that any consideration of race is impermissable, regardless of how 9 people in robes decree. Or do you also think that being a majority always makes the majority right. You sure have silly notions of right and wrong, regardless of what's legal or not.

On the Contrary, Tubbs
I want every black person in my party, as long as they want smaller, less powerful government, more self reliance, more liberty, more freedom, and a repudiation of the oppressive nanny-state you liberals seem to love so much.

Where's the beef?
I take it my "more flies with honey" comment above didn't really register with you, goatlockerloungelizard.

Extremely liberal btw does not make one a socialist. You should, like, you know, read up on socialism before you start throwing around labels you don't really understand. I can't remember the last time I talked to a Trotskyite and Stalinists are simply passe ;)

As for Obama's policies, NPR has a page that I've conveniently attached below for you, that details the remaining presidential candidates positions. It's got big words, though, so you know if you can get someone to help you out, I'm sure you'll get alot more out of it:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=184373 98

Now we're cooking!
pandm writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 2:33 PM
tubbs
You are awful ignorant or stupid or a damn liar, i don't know which.
I would suggest you try harder to learn and express facts based on reality & understanding.
The socialist party(once democrats) are using my hard earned money to by votes from the very ignorant of society & I and millions of others are getting tired of it. GOT THAT!!!"

Oh, I've got it alright, if by got it you mean an inability to stop laughing at you, yes, I've got that.

The very ignorant?
Wow, I didn't read pandm's post closely enough. Now let's put this in context: We have an "article" (and I think I'm being generous by calling it that), arguing that the Democratic Party is the real racist party based on their history. One would think that such an argument would be put forward to entice Blacks to vote Republican.

But, it doesn;t take to long before we get this from pandm:

"The socialist party(once democrats) are using my hard earned money to by votes from the very ignorant of society"

I take it by the very ignorant, you are referring to Blacks, as that has been the topic of this discussion. Well, now, that's quite a statement, pandm.

I think you guys should just stick to the Klan meetings, kay? You are obviously incapable of convincing anyone with an IQ higher than a rock that your party is worthwhile.

nice stretch, tubbs, you almost
had me believing that you were interested in discourse. I see now that you're merely waiting for someone to make a statement that you can twist out of context and attempt to smear them with it. You know darn good and well that pandm was referring to all the people the DEM's keep under their thumb via government handouts.

I guess you got your marching orders last summer with the dems absolutely disgusting twist on the whole "phony soldiers" scandal. Typical lib. Sad really.

FROG
I'm interested in discourse, sincerely, but did you read that guy's post? How am I supposed to address that like an adult?

Anyway, none of this matters. You all are going to vote how you vote. I and those like me are going to vote how we vote. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with selective use of history, so maybe that's why I've been spinning my wheels here.

All the best, Tubbs

Jack: Really?
“I am trying to get you and Maldain and other to step outside your own view and consider how minority communities experience these things. The question at hand here is why Republicans are spending so much time trying to convince minorities, mainly black Americans, that the Democrats are racists when it is 100% clear they do not experience the culture in the same way you do.”

Really? With respect to “Hyphenated-Americans”, the hue of their skin does not grant those special gravitas or an “esoteric insight” into the nature of reality in general and the human condition in particular. Try going through life w/ a "Bill of Attainder" hanging over your head in the form of “institutionalized racism”, e.g., anti-white male Affirmative Action/quotas. I recently won a multi-million $ science grant. Rest assured if a women or Hyphenated-American researcher had proposed a new process for placing a “an egg in a can” they would have been awarded said grant over me in the interest of “enhancing diversity” in the Science Technology Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) professional communities. Additionally, you might be interested to know that Caribbean/West-Indian (YES, of AFRICAN decent) immigrants, sharing the same cultural precepts of hard work, discipline and education as their Asian counterparts, do extremely well in our supposedly “racist” society. General Colin Powell is a fine example.

Also, you apparently subscribe to the ubiquitous but unsubstantiated myth of “institutionalized racism” so popular in the hyphenated-American subculture, while giving little consideration to the fact that today’s Hyphenated-Americans are victims of their own stupid behavior (i.e., 70% illegitimacy, 50% school drop out, 25% prison incarceration, etc.) more often than they are victims of a theoretical white-conspiracy.

This is stupid
The issue is not what Democrats, be they liberal or conservative, did 50 years ago. The issue is what Democrats are doing TODAY.

And today, we see white liberal Democrats proclaiming openly that black Democrats vote for Obama only because he's black. We see the same white liberal Democrats announcing that this will cause a backlash among white liberal Democrats, and that those people will not vote for Obama because he is black. We also see these same white liberal Democrats telling us that hispanic Democrats will not vote for Obama because he is black, while simultaneously, women will vote for Hillary because she is a women.

Nowhere in any of this is there a claim that these groups will support or oppose Obama because of his policies. Nowhere do we see these people tell us that these groups will oppose or support Hillary because of her policies.

The cat is out of the bag, folks, and try as you might, you can't put it back in. According to the leaders of the Democratic movement, black Democrats are racists, latino Democrats are racists, and female Democrats are sexists.

This isn't the past, this is Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy. Get over it.

Condescension doesn't become you
Tubbs. It only shows your weakness.

Liberals believe government should have coercive power over its citizens. That it's good for the government to lay claim to a citizen's labor. And noble for the government to forcibly seize money from some citizens against their will, in order to pay other citizen's doctor bills - all in an attempt to grab more power by favoring certain constituent groups over others.

That's not liberty, Tubbs. That's not freedom. That's not what our forefathers fought and died for. That's socialism.

What I don't understand is, why do you want to hide from the term socialist? A true believer in government power would be proud of what they are.

And what is it about freedom that you socialists are afraid of?

tubbs, I don't mind giving or ...
receiving a good arse whipping when its deserved. And I hope someone calls me out if I blatantly distort their views. That's what it looks to me like you did with pandm. I'm not defending his position or his post, surely he could have expressed himself better. It appears to me you okayed yourself taking the low road because you thought pandm was as well.

Still waiting for a response on the SCOTUS being infallible. Or have you never heard of Dred Scott?

Affirmative Action
Let's just take college admissions as a context. What criteria should be considered in college admissions?

Most people haven't a clue as to the reality of this context. In the first place, if an institution is not selective, it is trying to admit everyone it can. AA doesn't matter at all in this context, because a breathing student is a paying student.

If a school is selective, it has far more applicants than itcan admit and they are ALL qualified. The school is trying to select a mix of students that best suits it. The factors which determine the best mix are varied. They can and should include leadership, academic interest and success, athletic ability, financial status of the family, artistic capability, social involvement and so on. These all seem fine to conservatives. Especially the one where their own kids get spcial consideration just because of the family connections.

But the only thing that seems to concern conservatives is race.


tubbs: Hillary Clinton
tubbs writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 9:56 AM
LaShawn Barber
Failed the bar exam four times and is a recovering alcoholic, hence the gaps in her reasoning.

So what? The scion of your party, Ms. Clinton, admitted in a past interview that she became a lawyer only because she was too bad at math & science to become a Doctor, Engineer, Scientist or any other useful member of society. She failed to mention that she also FLUNKED the DC Bar Exam.


Famous quote
There is a famous quote "victor writes the vanquished history" Our school systems have contantly rewritten history. A few examples we are not taught about.

1. Black slave owners - The largest owner of slaves was himself black - http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

2. It was the stars and stripes that presided over slavery and the importation of slaves for 200 years - the conderate Stars and Bars for only 4 years - yet the Battle flag is the racist flag?

3. Republicans throughout our history have been more about black freedoms than democrats, but democrats created a self feeding monster with the handout programs that got blacks to vote in a direction that if they really studied history would never vote for.

Yawn
You still want to hang around huh, goatlockerloungelizard? My bag was all packed and I'm all set to move on to ruin some other Republican's day and you want to pull me back in?

OkeyDokey

"Liberals believe government should have coercive power over its citizens"

Patriot Act?
" Among its provisions, the Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications and medical, financial and other records; eased restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhanced the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include "domestic terrorism," thus enlarging the number of activities to which the Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied."

Warrantless Wiretap? (in violation of the 4th Amendment, I might add)
"The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor, without warrants, phone calls, e-mails, text messaging, and other communication involving any party believed by the NSA to be outside the U.S."

Odd but I don't remember those little gems of authoritarianism coming from the D party. Must've been the liberal wing of the Bush administration

Jack's got it backwards...
as usual. It isn't conservatives who are obsessed with race, friend. It's liberals.

We'd like nothing better than to remove all reference to race from the public discourse. Take it off all government forms, period. Our leaders ahve long championed a color-blind aim for society. It's the race hustlers like Al and Jesse and Bubba Bill who would rather die than lose their free ticket on the race-baiting gravy train.

It's hilarious to see all the racist and sexist voting patterns now in the democrat party primaries. Must be pretty hard on you, though, as a loyal democrat. Sorry. From now on, I'll try not to enjoy it so much.

Ahh.. the "you are a socialist" scam
Almost any TH cussion, no matter how rational, will ultimately be interrupted by someone wading in and calling liberals socialists. WHy stop there. Go on to communist. And why stop there? Just go on and claim we are all axe murderers.

It's an unfortuante and stupid reaction, but entirely predictable.

FROG
"Still waiting for a response on the SCOTUS being infallible. Or have you never heard of Dred Scott?"

I wrote a long paper on Dred Scott and race in the law during my last year of law school, so yes, I'm very familiar with the case.

I don't think I said that the Supreme Court is infallible, oh that's right, those were your words *ahem* straw man *ahem*

However, the legality of affirmative action has been codified in numerous executive orders and upheld on too many occasions for me to recount here, so comparing it to one bad decision like Dred Scott (a historically bad decision that is universally acknowledged as wrong), seems more than a bit off the mark.

Jvette
Points well taken. Perhaps the animosity played out by the Clinton's is a ploy to play both groups for their own benefit.

Jack: Charming missive
“Especially the one where their own kids get spcial consideration just because of the family connections. “

Charming missive replete with innuendo. Do you have any idea what qualifications (e.g., “Ivy League” SATs, athletic/academic honors, pass a physical that would challenge most Olympic Athletes, etc. ) that are required for a minimally-franchised white male to legitimately earn a service Academy appointment/scholarship? I do. While at the Academy, I was introduced to my second experience with institutional racism (my 1st is another story) while on “recruiting leave”: admission points are given to “deserving” minority students which allowed said students to be admitted with average SATs 250-300 points lower than their white (this practice occurs at all elite colleges & universities) counterparts. Ironically, SATs are the greatest indicator with respect to how a student will perform their freshman year. Needless to say, 90% of the minority students in my class either flunked out, burned out or were allowed to remain a 5th year (unlike their white male counterparts) in order to (IOT) graduate with a less academically rigorous degree, e.g., management, political science, etc. In contrast, I graduated in the middle of my class with a BS in Electrical Engineering- probably the most academically challenging of all undergraduate degrees.

My entire life I have had to demonstrate that I am twice a smart as all of my more “deserving” female/minority counterparts IOT obtain the same opportunities that they take for granted. I’m quite frankly tired of having to remain silent while a “Bill of Attainder” hangs over my head.

You think the Patriot Act is bad...
You should try filing my tax returns. Ever have to submit a schedule C? I'd rather have a root canal than hassle with all the requirements forced on me by my own government. Free country? Please. They want to know about not only every nickel I make, but also every penny I spend. And if I make a mistake... Talk about invasive.

Is that the sort of government power you prefer, Tubbs? Or would you support abolishing our insane, incomprehensible tax code along with the IRS, as many republans do?

And by the way, how many of your spineless democrat congressmen voted for the Patriot Act? Of course, as long as something is popular with the general public, they will support it. Just don't ask them to stand on principle - they haven't any.

And didn't they promise you all to end the war when they took over congress? How's that going for you?

Digging Up Democratic Skeletons
Many Democrats are, like many Republicans, nice people. History shows, however, that:

? In the 1830’s, Democrats evacuated the Cherokee nation from their rightful property and force-marched them on the “Trail of Tears”.
? In the 1840’s, Democrats instigated aggression against Mexico which eventually led to war.
? In the 1850’s, Democrats supported slavery.
? In the 1930’s, Democrats launched the welfare state in the US.
? In the 1950’s, Democrats upheld Jim Crow laws in opposition to civil rights.
? In the 1960’s, Democrats escalated the war in Viet Nam, and greatly expanded the welfare state.
? From the 1970’s to the present, Democrats have promoted abortion on demand, resulting in the loss of millions of productive citizens.

Democrats posture themselves as the helpers of the poor and disadvantaged, and accomplish this - not by digging into their own pockets, or making it easier for individuals, churches and civic organizations to help - but by using the raw power of government taxation to take resources from one group and bestowing a portion of the takings on another group. Democrats currently advocate gun control, rent control, speech control, health care control, population control, and climate control - there is a pattern developing here.

The Democratic Party: Compulsion Disguised as Compassion.

Seriously, Go Ahead
All of the ranting here quite misses the point.

The fact is that this whole thing has become an issue only because Republicans face a demographic tidal wave. The nation will be increasingly hispanic and black in upcoming years. More and more hispanic and black voters are identifying with the Democrat Party.

Yet, not a single one of you has even attempted to figure out or understand why. And your rhetoric and attitude here will not change anybody's mind. Trust me on that.

When I asked the question regarding lunch counters I wasn't suggesting black folk get kicked out of luncheonettes (with the exception maybe of Denny's). I was suggesting that people with lunch counter discrimination in their history experience the laissez faire impulse differently than white folk. That's all.

Actually, the frustration and anger expressed over Affirmative Action here is a good example of how African Americans must have felt in almost every aspect of their lives for over 400 years. Oooh.... let that happen to a white guy and the universe is ready to explode.

But like I said. DOn't bother tryign to figure this out. Just keep pretending it isn't real. The dust heap of political history is waiting for you with open arms.



Affirmative Action?
"Bush was also in the Yale First XV rugby union team in 1968.[1] He was a C student, scoring 77% (with no As and one D, in astronomy) with a grade point average of 2.35 out of a possible 4.00. Bush has joked that he was known more for his social life than for his grades.[2] He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1968."

Miraculously!

"After serving in the Texas Air National Guard, Bush entered Harvard Business School in 1973"

With a C AVERAGE?!?! Bush gets into Harvard B-school with a C average and you all are in arms about minorities benefiting from affirmative action? That's pretty bold.

tubbs
I don't believe the word "blacks was in my post.
Anyone that works for a living should be smart enough to know politicians will buy votes using tax payers money.
AND the Socialist party, headed by hillary & the rest of the mob are the masters of this.

Jack
Try Marxist.
If the shoe fits...

goatlockerloungelizard
"Liberals believe government should have coercive power over its citizens. "

It does, by its nature. Where conservatives and liberals disagree is over how and where that coercive power should be used.

Conservatives believe it should be used over people's private lives, such as whether or not to have an abortion, whether or not to have contraception available, whether or not to have the ability to get married.

Liberals believe it should be used to prevent the powerful from abusing the powerless, so they support workplace safety regulations, environmental regulations, fair employment regulations, etc.

Now you're getting it!
"goatlockerloungelizard writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 3:41 PM
You think the Patriot Act is bad...
You should try filing my tax returns."

Much stronger argument than, "your party is bad and you just don't know it."

Good Job goatlockerloungelizard. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks. And I agree the current tax system is appalling. I'm not sure why you think Democrats are in favor of our tax system (or big government for the sake of big government) but that's another discussion.

Its good work...
when you can get it.

Tell me Tubbs, are you billing one of your clients right now, while you're actually spinning deceit at TH? What's your record for billable hours in one week, so far? Couple hundred?

tubbs
"I don't think I said that the Supreme Court is infallible, oh that's right, those were your words *ahem* straw man *ahem*"

Ahem right back atcha.
No, you, in effect, said you would pick and choose which SCOTUS decisions you would approve of based on your own personal philosphical point of view.


tubbs, I didn't say ...
that SCOTUS was infallible. From your decision to "stick with SCOTUS" there was the implication that they are not ever wrong. No straw man here. Just seeking clarification of your remarks and whether or not you agree that the SCOTUS can sometimes get it wrong. Just like the so-called right to privacy the SCOTUS somehow extracted to legalize abortion. Doesn't exist. They got it wrong.

Jack: Granted
“Almost any TH cussion, no matter how rational, will ultimately be interrupted by someone wading in and calling liberals socialists. WHy stop there. Go on to communist. And why stop there? Just go on and claim we are all axe murderers.

It's an unfortuante and stupid reaction, but entirely predictable.”

Granted. But no more predictable than the LEFT inevitably characterizing individuals who disagree with them on principle as being NAZI’s. Regardless, did you ever study history beyond Marx, Freidan & Chomsky? The founder of what many think to be classic “Liberalism’ (as in libertarian) is John S. Mill who believed in free exchanges in the marketplace of ideas. Doesn’t sound like the pro-HATE speech code Leftist Academic establishment? He believed in free-enterprise/market-based economies which were considered “liberal” at the time when centrally-planned “mercantile economies” where in vogue. Doesn’t sound like your modern liberal/progressive?

Please show enough intellectual honesty by admitting that “institutionalized racism/sexism”, i.e., Affirmative Action, is just the same old Marxist canard repackaged for the perpetual benefit of upper-middle class Hyphenated-Americans.

Hours
goatlockerloungelizard you make another strong point. I'm out.

Jack, of all the things you listed ...
as considerations for acceptance into a program, "leadership, academic interest and success, athletic ability, financial status of the family, artistic capability, social involvement and so on" none of them are immutable. Race is. That is why it cannot and should not be a factor.

tubbs
"I'm not sure why you think Democrats are in favor of our tax system (or big government for the sake of big government) but that's another discussion."
Simply because it gives them the opportunity to direct SOCIAL policy by either promoting their particular brand of social programs by giving tax breaks, preferences and outright handouts to those who adhere to those favored programs, or punish those who do not by various other fiscal means.
Tell me why the federal government needs to tax all US citizens from across the nation, then (after taking a cut for themselves) dole it back to the states based on FEDERALLY promoted programs?
EG, why in H has the federal government in Washington, DC have to get involved with the educational system already administered by the states and operated at the local level?

Jack: Seriously
“Actually, the frustration and anger expressed over Affirmative Action here is a good example of how African Americans must have felt in almost every aspect of their lives for over 400 years. Oooh.... let that happen to a white guy and the universe is ready to explode.”

What would any black PERSONALLY know of what transpired over 400+ years ago? Stop interpreting contemporary society via a Marxist-prism. Ironically, Swahili-speaking Black Muslims in the 11th century invented the modern version of slavery (i.e., “…of keeping others out and others down) still practiced by modern-day Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, the ASHANTI tribe (the only tribe ruthless enough to stop the northern progression of the ZULU nation) that generally monopolized the slave trade in West Africa had the charming habit of either eating their captives or selling them in slavery. That being said, not a black alive today was a slave; their fathers were never slaves; their grandfathers were never slaves, etc. Get over it. The hue of their skin does not grant them special gravitas or an “esoteric insight” into the nature of reality in general and the human condition in particular. Try going through life w/ a "bill of attainder" hanging over your head in the form of “institutionalized racism”, e.g., anti-white male Affirmative Action/quotas. Additionally, you might be interested to know that Caribbean/West-Indian (YES, of AFRICAN decent) immigrants, sharing the same cultural precepts of hard work, discipline and education as their Asian counterparts, do extremely well in our supposedly “racist” society. General Colin Powell is a fine example.

Jack: Seriously
“Actually, the frustration and anger expressed over Affirmative Action here is a good example of how African Americans must have felt in almost every aspect of their lives for over 400 years. Oooh.... let that happen to a white guy and the universe is ready to explode.”

What would any black PERSONALLY know of what transpired over 400+ years ago? Stop interpreting contemporary society via a Marxist-prism. Ironically, Swahili-speaking Black Muslims in the 11th century invented the modern version of slavery (i.e., “…of keeping others out and others down) still practiced by modern-day Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, the ASHANTI tribe (the only tribe ruthless enough to stop the northern progression of the ZULU nation) that generally monopolized the slave trade in West Africa had the charming habit of either eating their captives or selling them in slavery. That being said, not a black alive today was a slave; their fathers were never slaves; their grandfathers were never slaves, etc. Get over it. The hue of their skin does not grant them special gravitas or an “esoteric insight” into the nature of reality in general and the human condition in particular. Try going through life w/ a "bill of attainder" hanging over your head in the form of “institutionalized racism”, e.g., anti-white male Affirmative Action/quotas. Additionally, you might be interested to know that Caribbean/West-Indian (YES, of AFRICAN decent) immigrants, sharing the same cultural precepts of hard work, discipline and education as their Asian counterparts, do extremely well in our supposedly “racist” society. General Colin Powell is a fine example.

Jack: Seriously
“Actually, the frustration and anger expressed over Affirmative Action here is a good example of how African Americans must have felt in almost every aspect of their lives for over 400 years. Oooh.... let that happen to a white guy and the universe is ready to explode.”

What would any black PERSONALLY know of what transpired over 400+ years ago? Stop interpreting contemporary society via a Marxist-prism. Ironically, Swahili-speaking Black Muslims in the 11th century invented the modern version of slavery (i.e., “…of keeping others out and others down) still practiced by modern-day Muslims in Sub-Saharan Africa. Additionally, the ASHANTI tribe (the only tribe ruthless enough to stop the northern progression of the ZULU nation) that generally monopolized the slave trade in West Africa had the charming habit of either eating their captives or selling them in slavery. That being said, not a black alive today was a slave; their fathers were never slaves; their grandfathers were never slaves, etc. Get over it. The hue of their skin does not grant them special gravitas or an “esoteric insight” into the nature of reality in general and the human condition in particular. Try going through life w/ a "bill of attainder" hanging over your head in the form of “institutionalized racism”, e.g., anti-white male Affirmative Action/quotas. Additionally, you might be interested to know that Caribbean/West-Indian (YES, of AFRICAN decent) immigrants, sharing the same cultural precepts of hard work, discipline and education as their Asian counterparts, do extremely well in our supposedly “racist” society. General Colin Powell is a fine example.

Reply to MKS part 1
MKS must not have been listening at last week’s meeting of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, because he sure got some things wrong.

Consider: he writes “In the 1830’s, Democrats evacuated the Cherokee nation from their rightful property and force-marched them on the “Trail of Tears”.” The last time I looked, liberals, and not conservatives, like to draw attention to the treatment of native Americans in the 19th century. Conservatives are supposed to support the cause of Westward expansion.

Here’s another oddity: he writes “In the 1840’s, Democrats instigated aggression against Mexico which eventually led to war.” Does MKS really think that the US should not have taken territory away from Mexico?

Showing he has absolutely no understanding of history, he write: “In the 1850’s, Democrats supported slavery..” Yes, they did, but this was the CONSERVATIVE position on this issue. MKS should see what I posted earlier that explains the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats in the Civil War era, and how those are not the differences between the parties in recent times, but my stuff is probably just too difficult for him.


reply to MKS part 2
More evidence that MKS doesn’t get it:

He makes the same mistake here, writing: “In the 1950’s, Democrats upheld Jim Crow laws in opposition to civil rights.” Again, see what I had to say about shifts in the positions of the two parties.

I’ll add to his bill of particulars: “In the 1960s, liberal Democrats and non-conservative Republicans voted for civil rights legislation; conservative Democrats and conservative Republicans opposed this legislation.”

Then a weird finale: he writes, “In the 1960’s, Democrats escalated the war in Viet Nam, and greatly expanded the welfare state.”

As a liberal Democrat, I don’t mind the expansion of the welfare state, but I’m sorry to tell MKS that conservatives supported the war in Vietnam as part of our struggle against the evil Communist empire. How dare MKS deny conservatives the joy of supporting an anti-Communist war?





Demosthenes
Actually, having been involved with higher ed for many many years, I am more than passing familiar with all of these issues.

I will be the first to admit that there can be inappropriate uses of race as a criteria in college admissions. But I will also be first in line to point out that there are also appropriate uses.

First off, the best predictor for ultimate college success is neither race nor SAT. It is family wealth.

Second, a selective institution has its pick of students. I work at one, and we could probably construct a class entirely of students with 2400 SAT scores, or very close to it. Fortunately, that is not what we are after in our student body. All of the students we admit are qualified. Deciding between a student with a 2000 who is also a great violin player and a student with a 2400 who has nothing except academics to offer is only a small example of the decision process. The violin player adds something to the culture. Given that we have plenty of 2400's, why shouldn't we admit the violin player?

Those who whine , and it is whining, never complained when the determinant was whether a student was the child of an alum. They never complained when the student was an athlete. They were not concerned when it was a student with an 1800 (relatively) and a rich father dropping a million in the development office.

But let the issue be race and the tears start to flow. As long as the student is capable of completing the work at the school, all other characteristics are open for consideration. As long as all the students are qualified (and the big issue there is athletics, not race) it is perfeclty acceptabel to construct a freshman class that mirrors the American population in racial or any other characteristic.

Demosthenes
eyah yeah, we know you feel oppressed as a white guy with an Engineering Degree. I am sure that having a BEE and making minimum wage is a frustrating combination.

Seriously,your whining about this is pretty much exactly the point. As long as your attitude is the conservative attitude, you will never make any inroads into the minority community.

For example, your devolution into the role of African tribes in slavery has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. But your desire to shift responsibility from white Americans to Africans is meaningful.

Your indication that black Americans do not special insight into what it means to be a black American is ludicrous. I did not claim they understood human nature in a way you do not, I said they understood being black a lot better than you.

By the way, Colin Powell is a strong supporter of Affirmative Action and attributes a degree fo his success to AA.

Dred Scott was rightly decided
It may be annoying to conservatives to hear this, but they should actually support the decision made by a majority of the SCOTUS in the Dred Scott case. Dred Scott was rightly decided, in a way conforming completely to a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. While some migh say that this issue has been long-settled, this isn't so, at least at the level of fundamental political principles. Conservatives, on conservative grounds, cannot fault Chief Justice Taney's decision.

Here is a URL for the Court's opinion, with concurrences and dissents.

http://tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/

I direct conservatives to section I.9 of the opinion, in which Taney writes:

9. "The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted."

This position is constitutional originalism; conservatives cannot have it any other way. Since they cannot allow for changes in public opinion to change the meaning of the Constitution, they are therefore committed to the constitutionality of Taney's opinion. Needless to say, few conservatives have the self-knowledge or the political courage to acknowledge this.


FROG
Why does the mutability or immutability of a characteristic matter? If an institution wants to create a freshman class of qualified students that matches the American racial demographic, why can't they make that decision?


Gestell
Thanks for that. Interesting

Black and hispanic loyalty explained.
Blacks and hispanics favor the Democratic Party because they realize that everything bad that has ever happened to them has been because of white oppression. Blacks were held down because of their unique role in being the only race ever held as slaves by another race - the whites. If it were not for the black slave revolt that finally allowed them to free themselves and end the tyranny of slavery, whites would still own blacks to this day.

With hispanics, whites did them a disservice by taking away the lands that the Spanish had conquered centuries ago. Hispanics went to all the trouble to kill off the indiginous Aztec populations, only to have whites come along and take that land away.

Democrats are aware of these misfortunes and have made amends by caring for blacks and hispanics much like pets. Democrats realize that these groups cannot fend for themselves without Democratic help, and the group members love and worship them for being so enlightened.

That is why it is a shame that Obama has sought to undermine the Party by running against one of the party favorites - Hillary. But like any naughty pet, he will get a smack on the nose and hopefully learn his lesson.

I think you mean Southern Democrats
and they finally found a home in the Republican party where they have been welcomed ever since!

Ron ROTFLMAO

MKS writes: Thursday, February, 07, 2008 3:42 PM
Digging Up Democratic Skeletons
Many Democrats are, like many Republicans, nice people. History shows, however, that:

Jack
A question. Why do your whining rants always refer to people and comments with which you disagree as whiners and whining?

Besides...
The Democratic party of the 19th century was the conservative party of its day, as we are familiar with the term.

Ron ROTFLMAO

And a question for Gestell
"Needless to say, few conservatives have the self-knowledge or the political courage to acknowledge this."

Why do you begin with needless to say, the go on anyway with a needless inane opinion expressed as if it were a fact?

As to your post in general, can you explain why the letter of the law correctness of the Dred Scott decision should be annoying to conservatives rather than to liberals?

Loyal Democrat
Even though I have been well aware of your astute satire, you almost got me with this one.

Kudos with a big grin.

Ron
"Besides...
The Democratic party of the 19th century was the conservative party of its day, as we are familiar with the term."

And so, as you are familiar with the term, (please don't include me in your "we") just what has this to do with anything?

"Ron ROTFLMAO"

And so I can only this must be the type of ROTFLMAO that we sometimes hear from gibbering idiots.

LoyalDemocrat is not party of virtue
The only reason why blacks and hispanic support the Democrats enmase is because they believe the myth that they are innocent victims of white oppression and that the so-called do-gooders feel their pain....which is pathetic at best in a country where the individual has an inalienable right to life and liberty. Dems manipulate the emotions of people and enterprise their weaknesses at the expense of others because they can't handle Yankee ingenuity.

Claiming that Obama is undermining the party is much more baloney....why because he is more effective in energizing people...something that none of the other candidates pulled off...because they all are phoneys and people know that. I am no fan of Obama but you can't blame him for the incompetence of others!

reply to Independent Thinker
So, who are the conservatives today who are willing to acknowledge the constitutionality of the Dred Scott decision?

Do you have a counterargument against my interpretaion of Dred Scott? If conservatives are constitutional originalists, how can they not embrace the Dred Scott decision? If they think they have some way around the unpleasantness of this embrace, what remains of their originalism?

Finally, what should be "annoying" to conservatives is that their basic principle of constitutional interpretation is compatible with the maintenance of slavery.

If you read Lincoln's criticisms of the Dred Scott decision, you'll see that he adduces all sorts of facts about such things as the existence of free blacks who voted after American independence. Lincoln argued much as liberals tend to do on this issue, but these arguments aren't available to the conservative constitutional originalist, who should see that the actual Constitution does not take such facts into account. We liberals get around this problem with our 'living Constitution' theory, but you guys aren't allowed to use that.




Current Conservatives...
Don't hide their bigotry...

They call poor countries the "turd world."

They call John McCain "Juan McCain."

They denigrate multi-culturalism.

They claim that everything good came from Europe.

THAT'S why thinking people of conscience steer clear of the G.O.P., the party of conservatives.

why not "liberal" and "leftist"?
There's a reason why the word "liberal" appears only once and "conservative" doesn't appear at all in Barber's endorsement of Bartlett's contribution to the latest conservative attempt to rewrite history.

As we all know, the right's favored term for the people they hate is "liberal" and "leftist." With the exception of calling Wilson a "liberal" no attempt is made to use these favored words. Any one who argue that this was not intentional is a liar. So why not tar liberals and leftists? Because northern liberal Democrats AND Republicans were at the front of the civil rights crusade. The conservatives maintained the barricades. Indisputable fact. Period.

Sweeping civil rights legislation only became possible with the '58 liberal landslide. It became reality when enough Republicans were convinced to drop their alliance with Southern Democrats. The liberal Democrats and Republicans then were allowed to carry they day.

The Repub Party then went on to nominate one of the opponents of the '64 legislation for president.

Actually Gestell...
...Dred Scott was not properly decided from a strict reading of the Constitution. No where in the Constitution is slavery allowed for or even addressed specifically. It was only in the belief that the "African Race" was not really human that they justified excluding blacks from the rights and priviliges endowed upon all men by our creator.

The Constitution was written to protect the rights of all citizens, by holding firm to the belief that blacks weren't people they could then not be accorded citizenship was the decision in the Dred Scott case. But nowhere does the Constitution permit slavery in any form.

Slavery was only defended at the time by a very liberal reading of the Constitution, not a conservative reading. Not very suprising there.

Democrats = Compulsion, not Compassion
How the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have been conflated! "Liberalism" once stood for freeing slaves, and protecting property rights for businesses and individuals. "Liberalism" once included promoting capitalism as the economic manifestation of democracy, since one could do as he wished with his own property. He could vote with his spending according to what he earned, and he could vote with his ballot according to his conscience. In 21st century western parlance, however, "liberal" has come to mean using the force of the state to consficate more and more from owners, and then using the confiscated property to purchase more votes and power by promising to confiscate yet more for the perceived benefit of those who will vote for the confiscators.

The plain history of the Republican and Democratic parties, however, is more difficult to conflate. Democrats abused Cherokee property rights in the 1830's, Democrats abused Mexican border rights in the 1840's, Democrats abused African-American civil rights in the 1850's and 1950's, and Democrats abused the military in the 1960's. In 2008, the philosophies of the Democrat Party do not seem to have changed from those positions very much. I state again that many fine people stand upon Democrat platforms, but many of those platforms are quite rotten. Perhaps the challenge of the Republicans in the coming demographic shifts is simply to work toward getting good, accurate education for the coming generations.

You can't get a good education
because the schools have been used as "engines of social change"--not teaching academics--since 1972 when the NEA president announced how teaching would now change the entire US into progressives.

But I will say I've never heard of "turd country" or "Juan McCain." They must've been written on the Daily Krap or movealong.pox.

Nobody has used those terms on TH.

And the great haters come from the left. Just read Lenin or Trotsky, listen to Castro's speeches, or watch Chavez campaign in S. Am.

Here are things we know
It's clear that the media and professors have brain-washed enough people (many of the people posting comments here) into thinking that conservatives are rascists. It's completely untrue. I've been a conservative my whole life, and have many conservative friends. I never hear them utter a word that is rascist. They're too busy working, feeding and clothing their family, etc etc. On the other hand, I have friends and co-workers that are Democrats...so many of them are indeed racists, whether of the traditional variety or reverse-rascists.

The fact is they base everything on race, gender, sexual preference, politics, etc. If in doubt about that, turn on the liberal news networks such as CNN, PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC (the list goes on and on) etc for coverage of the election. All those networks ever talk about is the perceptions of the candidates and the perceptions that voters might have about a candidates race, gender etc. Their is almost never a discussion about one iota of their policy beliefs. Of course, the Democrat