Liberal Racists On Parade In Maryland Senate Race

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Party trumps race' for Steele foes
By S.A. Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 2, 2005

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

Which is illegal under every credit fair reporting act, doesn't matter, he's a Republican. Win at any costs

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

"There is a difference between pointing out the obvious and calling someone names," said a campaign spokesman for Kweisi Mfume, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and former president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

State Sen. Lisa A. Gladden, a black Baltimore Democrat, said she does not expect her party to pull any punches, including racial jabs at Mr. Steele, in the race to replace retiring Democratic U.S. Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes.

There you go! Same thing as black people calling each other the "N" word. No such thing as racism or offensive, demeaning attacks when it's black on black I guess.

"Party trumps race, especially on the national level," she said. "If you are bold enough to run, you have to take whatever the voters are going to give you. It's democracy, perhaps at its worse, but it is democracy."

Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.

Ah yes, he can't be a real black because he isn't a liberal Democrat. Just like the Milwuakee Journal Sentinal said about Clarence Thomas "a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

"Because he is a conservative, he is different than most public blacks, and he is different than most people in our community," she said. "His politics are not in the best interest of the masses of black people."

Yes, we must support more free housing, more welfare, more food stamps, fail to end illegitimacy, fail to fight crime in black neighborhoods and fail to eliminate drug dealing and prostitution from their midsts and keep black kids in failing public schools at the behest of teacher's unions. Just like black Democrats. Because that's the standard elected black officials have set by their policy, votes and outcomes of their policy.

During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.

So classy. I'm sure you're all proud of this tactic.

In 2001, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. called Mr. Steele an "Uncle Tom," when Mr. Steele headed the state Republican Party. Mr. Miller, Prince George's County Democrat, later apologized for the remark.

"That's not racial. If they call him the "N' word, that's racial," Mrs. Marriott said. "Just because he's black, everything bad you say about him isn't racial."

This week, the News Blog -- a liberal Web log run by Steve Gilliard, a black New Yorker -- removed a doctored photo of Mr. Steele that depicted him as a black-faced minstrel.

However, the blog has kept its headline "Simple Sambo wants to move to the big house." A caption beneath a photo of the lieutenant governor reads: "I's Simple Sambo and I's running for the Big House."

While one individual does not a party make obviously this is very common amongst black Democrats and hell.... Democratic Underground posters.

A spokesman for the Maryland Democratic Party denounced the depiction as being "extremely offensive" and having "no place in politics or in any other aspect of public discourse," The Washington Post reported. Democrats have denied any connection to the News Blog.

Still, Mfume spokesman Joseph P. Trippi said Mr. Steele opens himself to such criticism by defending Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. for holding a Republican fundraiser in July at the all-white Elkridge Club in Baltimore.

"The facts are the facts. Ehrlich went to that country club, and Steele said it didn't bother him," Mr. Trippi said. "I think that says something ... and should be part of this debate."

Several club members told the Baltimore Sun that, though blacks are welcome as guests and there is no policy banning blacks from membership, the club never has had a black member in its 127-year history.

Democrats also have used the club for various events, including Peter O'Malley, brother of and adviser to Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, a Democratic candidate for governor. Peter O'Malley held his wedding reception there in 2003.

State Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat and vice chairman of the General Assembly's legislative black caucus, said black Republicans deserve criticism because the Republican Party has not promoted the interests of the black community.

"The public policies supported by Democratic principles are the ones that most impact the African-American community," she said. "I'm not saying [Mr. Steele] is a sell-out. That's not for me to say."

Yes, we must support more free housing, more welfare, more food stamps, fail to end illegitimacy, fail to fight crime in black neighborhoods and fail to eliminate drug dealing and prostitution from their midsts and keep black kids in failing public schools at the behest of teacher's unions. Just like black Democrats. Because that's the standard elected black officials have set by their policy, votes and outcomes of their policy.

Yes, again, your track record is ASTOUNDINGLY SUCCESSFUL!

In July, however, Mr. Mfume noted how Republicans were rallying for Mr. Steele but his party had ignored his historic candidacy. "More voters in Maryland are carrying the impression that the Democratic Party talks the talk, but doesn't always walk the walk. People may find a way to cross over in the fall," he said.

Steele campaign spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said state Democrats are afraid of losing the black vote to Mr. Steele.

And there you have what all of this is actually about. Win at any cost regardless of how you do it, how it looks, makes you look or who you smear.

"That has caused a great tremble throughout the Maryland Democratic Party," he said. "Of course [they are] going to condone racism. It's nothing new, and it's not surprising."
Link
 
I'm admittedly torn. While acts such as this are deplorable, herein lies the difficulty: the American public does not want to engage in a serious debate about race. They don't want to hear that white males with felony convictions get more job opportunities than black males with no criminal record. They don't want to hear that redlining still goes on. They want to handle discrimination as a case by case scenario, rather than a large-scale phenomenon. They don't want to hear about Affirmative Action, and they can't reasonably come up with a more suitable alternative; the dialogue about AA boils down to one's preference for forms of discrimination, and we'd (as a collectivity) rather discriminate in favor of whites than blacks.

So, in the end, the problem lies here: Americans don't care about race. They like to think that racial issues should have ended in 1964 (or was it 67?), and any discrepancies following that year are inherently the result of blacks themselves.

So, knowing that a serious debate can't be had, and that ugly political action gets more attention than a debate anyway (thankyouverymuch media), what opportunities are left for conveying a political message? Lamentably, it comes down to shit like this. I wish it were more "professional," for lack of a better term. That would necessitate, however, engaging in the very debates I pointed out.

I think these actions are deplorable, but I thought I'd add my thoughts as to why these actions are occurring, and not something more substantive (though, perhaps the answer to that is: this is fuckin' politics).
 
I don't really care what you're talking about, but for some reason, throwing Oreos at people sounds really funny.
 
I like how "liberal racists" are bad but a club that has never had a black member is okay. Or how whisper campaigns against McCain's brown children are fine as well. When you start honestly talking about racism in all regards (including your own), you will have a modicum of credibility. Until then your shallow tirades are useless.

While saying that one's race must dictate ones politics is deplorable. This idea that every attack on black conservatives is racial is beyond stupid.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I like how "liberal racists" are bad but a club that has never had a black member is okay. Or how whisper campaigns against McCain's brown children are fine as well. When you start honestly talking about racism in all regards (including your own), you will have a modicum of credibility. Until then your shallow tirades are useless.

While saying that one's race must dictate ones politics is deplorable. This idea that every attack on black conservatives is racial is beyond stupid.[/QUOTE]


Seems obvious to me that's they are attacking his race because he is a republican. How else would you interpret the throwing of oreo cookies at him?

I think the dems are risking every year with losing the minority vote and they are getting more and more hateful about it. I see nothing wrong with being a minority republican but the liberals feel that your party choice should be based on skin color. Even my wife gets huge criticism from her democratic family since she doesn't "hate" bush or the republican party. I think she still votes dem though but she has been close to voting republican (I am working on that). Her family has the notion that all republicans are racists. This is a notion the dems are very happy to feed and if the truth ever got out they would lose a LOT of votes. I got money that says a republican minority will be the first president or vice president.

For some reason the republicans lost the minority vote at some time. Not sure exactly when. But remember...it was Lincoln that freed the slaves and how quickly they forget that old Abe was a republican.
 
[quote name='defender'] This is a notion the dems are very happy to feed and if the truth ever got out they would lose a LOT of votes.[/QUOTE]

truth.jpg
 
Given that Republicans buy into a notion of a "colorblind" society (which basically means that policy needs to ignore the mountains of data that shows covert racist behavior still predominates in our society), and are opposed to Affirmative Action (and are necessarily in favor of the default white privilege), and given their opposition to welfare policies, I can't quite see why any black would be a Republican to begin with.

Really, it's not that hard to figure out. Republican philosophy, at its very foundation, is premised upon the notion of *equal opportunity* at every stage of life. While ideal, race and class are two tremendous obstacles that underride the very false notion of equal opporunity for achievement. With that in mind, why in the world would any black person want to vote for a party that denies the very existence of consistently proven empirical reality of a racist society?

That having been said, at its core, I do believe in the Republican philosophy (BIG surprise there!); until we have a society that can, to the best of its utilitarian ability, emulate and replicate a meritocracy that reproduces itself anew with each generation (that is to say, a ghetto child has equal chances at success as does the child of a Yale grad), I will never, ever, ever vote Republican.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

That having been said, at its core, I do believe in the Republican philosophy (BIG surprise there!); until we have a society that can, to the best of its utilitarian ability, emulate and replicate a meritocracy that reproduces itself anew with each generation (that is to say, a ghetto child has equal chances at success as does the child of a Yale grad), I will never, ever, ever vote Republican.[/QUOTE]

They probably weren't counting on your vote, anyhoo.
 
[quote name='defender']Seems obvious to me that's they are attacking his race because he is a republican. How else would you interpret the throwing of oreo cookies at him?

I think the dems are risking every year with losing the minority vote and they are getting more and more hateful about it. I see nothing wrong with being a minority republican but the liberals feel that your party choice should be based on skin color. Even my wife gets huge criticism from her democratic family since she doesn't "hate" bush or the republican party. I think she still votes dem though but she has been close to voting republican (I am working on that). Her family has the notion that all republicans are racists. This is a notion the dems are very happy to feed and if the truth ever got out they would lose a LOT of votes. I got money that says a republican minority will be the first president or vice president.

For some reason the republicans lost the minority vote at some time. Not sure exactly when. But remember...it was Lincoln that freed the slaves and how quickly they forget that old Abe was a republican.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, too bad it was so damn long ago and the GOP is much different. Do you really expect them to "owe" the GOP a vote until the end of time?

Easy big fella, Republicans who patronize blacks aren't doing the party any favors either. I mean, the gist of the GOP pitch to blacks for years has been-"hey when you guys wise up, you'll vote for us" or " Blacks vote for the Dems because of all of the entitlements they get from them". Calling people whose vote you want stupid and lazy is no way to get it.

That said there is some racing baiting on the Dems side by those who have a vested interest in it . However, the same can be said about the GOP.


p.s. Yes, those attacks were racial. And the Dems in that area denounced it. But not every attack on a black republican is racist. I didn't like Janice Rogers Brown based on her politics and long before I even knew she was black because the 'liberals" I was listening to didn't even mention her color.
 
[quote name='usickenme'] And the Dems in that area denounced it. But not every attack on a black republican is racist. [/QUOTE]

Ummm...just because a party spokesman read some rehashed denouncement statement that was written for him certainly doesn't mean all the area Democrats feel that way. When Scott McClellan reads some BS statement do you automatically buy what he's selling? The one senator just a few years ago apparently called him an Uncle Tom. Now there's this lady...

"State Sen. Verna Jones, Baltimore Democrat and vice chairman of the General Assembly's legislative black caucus, said black Republicans deserve criticism because the Republican Party has not promoted the interests of the black community. "

"The public policies supported by Democratic principles are the ones that most impact the African-American community," she said. "I'm not saying [Mr. Steele] is a sell-out. That's not for me to say."

Yeah big denouncement there... She wisely backs away from outright calling him a sell-out despite her earlier remarks that he doesn't support what she believes is the only party that most supports his race. Which IMO is a pretty roundabout of calling him a sell-out. They may not totally support the tactics of that blog (I wondered if they said the exact same thing when people, who were apparently their voters, pelted him with oreos), but it's pretty clear that both those tactics are just illustrating in a more improper and malice-laced manner, what the local democrats are feeling towards this guy.
 
[quote name='defender']Seems obvious to me that's they are attacking his race because he is a republican. How else would you interpret the throwing of oreo cookies at him?

I think the dems are risking every year with losing the minority vote and they are getting more and more hateful about it. I see nothing wrong with being a minority republican but the liberals feel that your party choice should be based on skin color. Even my wife gets huge criticism from her democratic family since she doesn't "hate" bush or the republican party. I think she still votes dem though but she has been close to voting republican (I am working on that). Her family has the notion that all republicans are racists. This is a notion the dems are very happy to feed and if the truth ever got out they would lose a LOT of votes. I got money that says a republican minority will be the first president or vice president.

For some reason the republicans lost the minority vote at some time. Not sure exactly when. But remember...it was Lincoln that freed the slaves and how quickly they forget that old Abe was a republican.[/QUOTE]

Republicans, of lincoln's time, were the modern day liberals. But the parties switched. The republicans were becoming more conservative throughout the first half of the 20th century, and the time of the whole dixiecrat, southern democrat thing is one of the main points that they lost the minority vote. The civil rights act is a perfect example. Dixiecrats dominated the south, but still, if you look at the regional breakdown, southern democrats had a higher percentage of votes supporting the civil rights act compared to southern republicans, the same goes for northern democrats vs northern republicans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

For a while dixiecrats stayed with the main democrat party, attempting to change it to reflect more racist views. But, eventually, many dixiecrats did join the republican party, such as strom thurmond. That party more accurately reflect their racist views. So while the bulk of the democrat party rejected their views, the republican party saw little problem in accepting racists into their ranks.

If you want to know why the republicans are considered racist, all you have to do is look at their past. It's that parties fault. The republicans were the more racist party, there is little doubt in that. I would argue that they still are, but now it is simply that they have more racist members, who have voting patterns reflecting that, and not a party wide issue as it once was.
 
You can find racist dealings by the GOP in the 2000 election in Florida, where many blacks were denied their vote, either because their name resembled that of a convict (and by resemble, I mean first initial, last name). There were even more heinous reasons for removing the votes. Orchestrated by none other than Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris themselves.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

I'm not sure if this is the best link, but it was #1 after doing a 6 word keyword search on google, and seemed to be quite informative after a quick glance.
 
>>For some reason the republicans lost the minority vote at some time.

Like its such an unsolved mystery.

As if Nixon's Southern Strategy and a generation plus of closet and not so closeted racists had nothing to do with it.
 
Greg Palast is a reputable journalist, but since his text "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" was, in a sense, the motivation for Fahrenheit 9/11, he's pretty much persona non grata to them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Greg Palast is a reputable journalist, but since his text "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" was, in a sense, the motivation for Fahrenheit 9/11, he's pretty much persona non grata to them.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure there are plenty of other sources out there for this info. I originally saw this info on a documentary I saw a year ago. I just didn't want to take the time to find a really good source, since I was writing a research paper while replying to that.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']You can find racist dealings by the GOP in the 2000 election in Florida, where many blacks were denied their vote, either because their name resembled that of a convict (and by resemble, I mean first initial, last name). There were even more heinous reasons for removing the votes. Orchestrated by none other than Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris themselves.

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

I'm not sure if this is the best link, but it was #1 after doing a 6 word keyword search on google, and seemed to be quite informative after a quick glance.[/QUOTE]

First, get over 2000. You lost.

Next, what does this have anything to do with the blatant racist statements made by black liberals and Democrats.
 
I have to agree with PAD that these are fairly racist statements. I mean, in this day and age there is no reason for this kind of shit, it doesn't really help anything at all to say that.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']First, get over 2000. You lost.

Next, what does this have anything to do with the blatant racist statements made by black liberals and Democrats.[/QUOTE]

Because, for all the people who claim that the GOP is not racist, this would seem to indicate otherwise.

Of course, 5 years is such a looooooong time. Practically a generation or 2. I'm sure the GOP has turned a new leaf and would never dream of doing something like that ever again.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're completely OT.[/QUOTE]

I don't see it that way. Just because I didn't use the word "liberal" or "democrat" in my post doesn't mean I'm off topic. However, I did use "GOP" (republican) and "racist", which both refer to parts of your OP.

Anyways, since when is this thread yours to control?

Also, you're veering the topic away from what is actually at hand. These blacks are denouncing a black republican. You call that racist. I point out that the republican party has had a blatantly racist dealing 5 years ago. One that should alienate black people from voting republican. That is very relevent and not OT.
 
You are dumb beyond belief.

They're not denouncing a black Republican. They're racially smearing a black Republican with epithets that would have a white politician disgraced and treated as a Klansman if he or she did the same thing within 12 hours of the statement.

Can you read? Do you read? Or do you just make up pointless counter arguments by pulling 5 year old headlines out of your ass and saying "MAN! THIS SAYS RACE WAS INVOLVED! I'LL USE THIS ONE!".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You are dumb beyond belief.

They're not denouncing a black Republican. They're racially smearing a black Republican with epithets that would have a white politician disgraced and treated as a Klansman if he or she did the same thing within 12 hours of the statement.

Can you read? Do you read? Or do you just make up pointless counter arguments by pulling 5 year old headlines out of your ass and saying "MAN! THIS SAYS RACE WAS INVOLVED! I'LL USE THIS ONE!".[/QUOTE]

Differentiate between smearing and denouncing.

Are you also saying that things that happened 5 years ago aren't relevent? Should I quote you every time you bring up Clinton or something that happened before Bush the 2nd?
 
May I take a guess here? I haven't read the whole article but if there are racial epithets I can understand some of the beef but I gotta ask is there any of this racist Democrat nonsense like when Democrats bitched about Clarence Thomas, a hard Right candidate? I just LOVE it when Republicans bitch racism when whatever Black Republican they get just HAPPENS to be Hard Right, like it's just a concidence. If you think you can use race to wedge in some Extremist you've got another thing coming. What happened to the Powells of the Republican party? Oh I remember, they're not welcome anymore. They want Black Jesse Helms' like Alan Keyes who are complete lunatics, who even some of the Republicans want them to shut up.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Differentiate between smearing and denouncing.

Are you also saying that things that happened 5 years ago aren't relevent? Should I quote you every time you bring up Clinton or something that happened before Bush the 2nd?[/QUOTE]

Smearing? Throwing Oreo cookies at him. Calling him an Uncle Tom. Depicting him as a minstrel in cartoons. Depicting him as a dumb house negro slave. Depicting him unable to talk as a normal person and on intellectual par with an Amos and Andy character. That's not enough? That's civil discourse?

Were Republicans accused of calling black voters plantation slaves? Were they using racial stereotypes? Were they saying they were too stupid to vote? Were they throwing them fried chicken and watermellon? Were they saying things like the damn blacks just don't know what's good for them?

No.

Your comparison has no validity.
 
Isn't your generalization of racist liberals when compared to the rest of the party the basis of rascism itself, PAD?

If you like we can fill the rest of this thread with isolated racist republican moves.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Were Republicans accused of calling black voters plantation slaves? Were they using racial stereotypes? Were they saying they were too stupid to vote? Were they throwing them fried chicken and watermellon? Were they saying things like the damn blacks just don't know what's good for them?

No.

Your comparison has no validity.[/QUOTE]

You're right. I give up. Denying someone the vote based on ethnicity isn't racist.
 
I love the rhetoric in this thread. Basically we have shown that the dems can't take credit for having any racial problems in their party. Since it's been pointed out that studies show that there is racial issues still in our nation...well they must ALL be on the republican side right! OK...everyone with any minority background or issues please vote democrat from now on. Stand in line and shut up. It doesn't matter your opinions and views on any other matter. If you are a minority you MUST be a democrat or else!

jeez...pathetic


To point out past events is fine but they hold no relevance to the obvious action this week. As for Florida and black voters getting denied...I cry bullshit. The dems love to lawyer up and throw racial tension into every arena they can. It keeps the minorities scared and voting democrat. Like I said..if the dems ever do lose the minority vote (and it will happend within 3-4 elections) then the dem party will basically be screwed and have to actually take a stance on real subjects.
 
[quote name='defender']I love the rhetoric in this thread. Basically we have shown that the dems can't take credit for having any racial problems in their party. Since it's been pointed out that studies show that there is racial issues still in our nation...well they must ALL be on the republican side right! OK...everyone with any minority background or issues please vote democrat from now on. Stand in line and shut up. It doesn't matter your opinions and views on any other matter. If you are a minority you MUST be a democrat or else!

jeez...pathetic


To point out past events is fine but they hold no relevance to the obvious action this week. As for Florida and black voters getting denied...I cry bullshit. The dems love to lawyer up and throw racial tension into every arena they can. It keeps the minorities scared and voting democrat. Like I said..if the dems ever do lose the minority vote (and it will happend within 3-4 elections) then the dem party will basically be screwed and have to actually take a stance on real subjects.[/QUOTE]

Do you have anything of substance to offer, or merely hypotheses and hyperbole befitting of Ann Coulter's tagalong wannabe pal?

Do you *really* think that blacks will start voting Republican in 3-4 elections? Perhaps you could address the points I brought up above and tell me how the Republicans will get past that to capture the black vote? Perhaps you can tell me how, after the catastrophe that was Hurricane Katrina, and the latent racism behind that, not to mention polls showing approval ratings as low as 2% among blacks for president Bush, that you think you'll recapture the vote in less than 16 years?

Think about this now; let's deal with facts. You want to cry "bullshit" on voter disenfranchisement in 2000 Florida? Well, you're denying proven FACTS. I'm not here to whine about how Bush stole the election (not now, anyway), but I'm not enough of a damned fool to say something didn't happen simply because it disagrees with what I think politically. You clearly aren't interested in empirical reality; if you were, you would realize that blacks *were* disproportionately removed from voter rolls, even when they lacked criminal records.

If you just want to postulate, and get in some stream of consciousness horseshit that shows that you have little cognitive insight other than what's up your ass at the moment, let me know. I'll put you on ignore in a heartbeat; I'm not saying that as a threat, but I won't bother any more words trying to convert someone so delightfully oblivious to their reality, and someone so uninterested in what the truth of what they're saying is.

If you want to discuss, then you'll need to bring a bit more substance to your discourse. It's not that fuckin' hard.
 
>>The dems love to lawyer up and throw racial tension into every arena they can. It keeps the minorities scared and voting democrat

Why do I even bother learning your names when you all spew the same talking points?
 
Apologies in advance to decent Marylanders on this board, but Maryland as a state is so politically fucked up this doesn't much surprise me. Perhaps some of the gratuitous details of the racist comments will always be rather shocking, but Maryland -- can't be too surprised. And we've seen this stuff before from Democrats. Any black Republican is instantly labeled as an Uncle Tom and someone who hates their own race. The same was said of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice (and continues to be said, let's be honest). It's so sad that we are still so hung up on race, or some people are anyway.
 
I guess when the GOP has whisper campaigns about politicians having black babies or supposed virtue czar equating crime with being black, or throwing black people off the voter rolls, you have to be a little hung up on race.

..the recent Senate apology for lynching garnered widespread support with a whopping 85 co-sponsers. However 15 senators didn't feel it necessary to co-sponser (which they even could have done after the fact) this gestures.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

see a trend.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I guess when the GOP has whisper campaigns about politicians having black babies or supposed virtue czar equating crime with being black, or throwing black people off the voter rolls, you have to be a little hung up on race.

..the recent Senate apology for lynching garnered widespread support with a whopping 85 co-sponsers. However 15 senators didn't feel it necessary to co-sponser (which they even could have done after the fact) this gestures.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

see a trend.[/QUOTE]

PAD's favorite klansman doesn't seem to be on that list, but good old Trent Lott is. How shocking.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I guess when the GOP has whisper campaigns about politicians having black babies or supposed virtue czar equating crime with being black, or throwing black people off the voter rolls, you have to be a little hung up on race.

..the recent Senate apology for lynching garnered widespread support with a whopping 85 co-sponsers. However 15 senators didn't feel it necessary to co-sponser (which they even could have done after the fact) this gestures.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Michael Crapo (R-ID)
Michael Enzi (R-WY)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
Trent Lott (R-MS)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Sununu (R-NH)
Craig Thomas (R-WY)
George Voinovich (R-OH)

see a trend.[/QUOTE]

Why should any Senator on either side of the aisle have to apologize for anything they didn't directly do? It's political feelgoodism.

Likewise why should be need to apologize for slavery or even talk about reparations? Is anyone alive that owned a slave? Is anyone alive that sold slaves? How about traded slaves? Nope, none of the above.

Maybe, just maybe, these Senators didn't feel the need to attach their name to an apology over actions they had absolutely nothing to do with. No way in hell I'd attach my name to a formal apology for something I had nothing to do with.

Of course cowering, sniveling, groveling feelgoodish Democrats will do whatever will get them "sensitive" press. fuck that. I'm glad these guys have balls not to sign on to a farce of an apology.
 
Well, I don't know the history of those senators except for one. Trent Lott, you would think, should have jumped at the chance to apologize, since he has a segregationist past.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why should any Senator on either side of the aisle have to apologize for anything they didn't directly do? It's political feelgoodism.
[/QUOTE]

So is diagnosing Terry Shavio from 1000 miles away. Or a flag burning amendment. Is this your first day studying politics?

Sure the vote didn't "do" anything but it is an easy politcal gesture that doesn't cost ANYTHING except the votes of racists.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']First, get over 2000. You lost.[/QUOTE]



Is this a game for you?


You could have fooled me with your childish attitude.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you have anything of substance to offer, or merely hypotheses and hyperbole befitting of Ann Coulter's tagalong wannabe pal?

Do you *really* think that blacks will start voting Republican in 3-4 elections? Perhaps you could address the points I brought up above and tell me how the Republicans will get past that to capture the black vote? Perhaps you can tell me how, after the catastrophe that was Hurricane Katrina, and the latent racism behind that, not to mention polls showing approval ratings as low as 2% among blacks for president Bush, that you think you'll recapture the vote in less than 16 years?

Think about this now; let's deal with facts. You want to cry "bullshit" on voter disenfranchisement in 2000 Florida? Well, you're denying proven FACTS. I'm not here to whine about how Bush stole the election (not now, anyway), but I'm not enough of a damned fool to say something didn't happen simply because it disagrees with what I think politically. You clearly aren't interested in empirical reality; if you were, you would realize that blacks *were* disproportionately removed from voter rolls, even when they lacked criminal records.

If you just want to postulate, and get in some stream of consciousness horseshit that shows that you have little cognitive insight other than what's up your ass at the moment, let me know. I'll put you on ignore in a heartbeat; I'm not saying that as a threat, but I won't bother any more words trying to convert someone so delightfully oblivious to their reality, and someone so uninterested in what the truth of what they're saying is.

If you want to discuss, then you'll need to bring a bit more substance to your discourse. It's not that fuckin' hard.[/QUOTE]

I have to disagree with you here. Hurricane Katrina was not the Republicans being racist, it was Classism pure and simple. Listen to what Barbara Bush said. Her crop of rich assholes are so far removed from the plight of the common people they have this Marie Antoinette attitude that needs to fucking stop. She fucking said they were better off, people that lost their fucking homes!, even if they were shacks, is better than them living in the dome. At least when they had a home they had a place they could live by themselves or just with THEIR family. And if what I heard was true she even had the fucking nerve to move the food out after the Press was gone. These people fill me with such vitriol and these are the SCUMBAGS you defend PAD. Not common, DECENT, Middle Class Republicans but these people who the American troops lives mean nothing to unless it's part of moving a $ agenda forward. Look at Tamiflu, you know why the Administration is trying to get it out there even if the Pandemic thing ends up to be blown out of proportion? Because Rummy gets a piece of it. Iraq? Well Cheney gets a nice little chuck of that too.
If you truly believe they're doing all this because they care about the good of the American people, you're SORELY mistaken PAD. I think this was made clear with the Valerie Plame Scandal which you seem to want to just pull the wool over your eyes on.
 
For once, hannity and colmes was priceless. I just saw hannity say "no major democrats denounced this sufficiently" so colmes starts reading from a list of all the major democrats in the area denouncing it. Hannity said "that wasn't sufficient". Colmes read one expressly denouncing the incidents 100% and saying they were disgusted by any such behavior, hannity just kept shaking his head "they didn't denounce it" while being drowned out by colmes list of quotes.

The democrat guest (wrote "the case for hillary") on the show and coulter continued to talk about it. The democrat said the reason they were so angry at him was because the republican governor had attended a whites only club, and didn't understand how a black person could support him. Coulter sat there, confused, and said something like "I don't know why we're being attacked when you democrats were behave as racists". So the democrat guests asks her "do you approve of whites only clubs?" Coulter sits there confused, suprised (caught?) not knowing what to say and unable to form a word. She gets asked again "do you appove of whites only clubs?" She can't think of a response. Hannity has to step in and answer for her saying "she does not". Then they cut to a commercial.

I'm a little sketchy on the exact quotes since I was watching it all unfold, when they post a transcript of the show (if they do) I'll post it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']For once, hannity and colmes was priceless. I just saw hannity say "no major democrats denounced this sufficiently" so colmes starts reading from a list of all the major democrats in the area denouncing it. Hannity said "that wasn't sufficient". Colmes read one expressly denouncing the incidents 100% and saying they were disgusted by any such behavior, hannity just kept shaking his head "they didn't denounce it" while being drowned out by colmes list of quotes.

The democrat guest (wrote "the case for hillary") on the show and coulter continued to talk about it. The democrat said the reason they were so angry at him was because the republican governor had attended a whites only club, and didn't understand how a black person could support him. Coulter sat there, confused, and said something like "I don't know why we're being attacked when you democrats were behave as racists". So the democrat guests asks her "do you approve of whites only clubs?" Coulter sits there confused, suprised (caught?) not knowing what to say and unable to form a word. She gets asked again "do you appove of whites only clubs?" She can't think of a response. Hannity has to step in and answer for her saying "she does not". Then they cut to a commercial.

I'm a little sketchy on the exact quotes since I was watching it all unfold, when they post a transcript of the show (if they do) I'll post it.[/QUOTE]

I just saw that part of the show a little while ago. It's good to hear people like Susan Estrich, whom I personally disagree with a lot, denounce the racism on display in Maryland. And I also applaud those whom Colmes quoted as saying that the oreos and "Uncle Tom" comments were wrong.

As a side note, Coulter was wearing so much eyeliner it seemed as if she had goggles on. Did she hire Katherine Harris' makeup girl or something?

As for the lynching thing, I do agree that nobody should have to apologize for something they did not do. However, it is reasonably and I think successfully argued that they are aplogizing not for the lynching themselves personally, but for the government not doing enough to stop it from happening, which we all know did happen and was disgraceful. So taking it as an apology from the government for not enforcing the law, I think it's a nice gesture of acknowledgement.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Do you have anything of substance to offer, or merely hypotheses and hyperbole befitting of Ann Coulter's tagalong wannabe pal?

Do you *really* think that blacks will start voting Republican in 3-4 elections? Perhaps you could address the points I brought up above and tell me how the Republicans will get past that to capture the black vote? Perhaps you can tell me how, after the catastrophe that was Hurricane Katrina, and the latent racism behind that, not to mention polls showing approval ratings as low as 2% among blacks for president Bush, that you think you'll recapture the vote in less than 16 years?

Think about this now; let's deal with facts. You want to cry "bullshit" on voter disenfranchisement in 2000 Florida? Well, you're denying proven FACTS. I'm not here to whine about how Bush stole the election (not now, anyway), but I'm not enough of a damned fool to say something didn't happen simply because it disagrees with what I think politically. You clearly aren't interested in empirical reality; if you were, you would realize that blacks *were* disproportionately removed from voter rolls, even when they lacked criminal records.

If you just want to postulate, and get in some stream of consciousness horseshit that shows that you have little cognitive insight other than what's up your ass at the moment, let me know. I'll put you on ignore in a heartbeat; I'm not saying that as a threat, but I won't bother any more words trying to convert someone so delightfully oblivious to their reality, and someone so uninterested in what the truth of what they're saying is.

If you want to discuss, then you'll need to bring a bit more substance to your discourse. It's not that fuckin' hard.[/QUOTE]

I love Ann Coulter. Also it's obvious yer a smart guy. I still don't see any PROOF in your post about the republicans stopping black voters simply because of race. Of course it may be true that some blacks were denied voting because of problems but since it's a true statistics that there are more black inmates one would stand to reason that more blacks would have issues voting if inmates were to be denied voting rights. That doesn't seem racist to me. THe substance I offer is my opinion while not stated as well as yours it's still just my opinion....same as you. I really do honestly believe that in 3-4 elections minorities (you say black but I coun't all minorities i.e. latino population..etc, etc...) will vote more for the republicans than democrats. I don't think that's too far fetched. This again is simply my opinion which I have no need to back up with facts since it's only a prediction. I am not a fortune teller.

A wonderful fact is that even though approval rating for Bush himself is low..the democrats approval rating hasn't inched up a bit. Doesn't that tell you something? Also if Bush really was that poor of a president and the answer was to vote democrat then why did Bush win a second term??? That seems like a good enough point to argue that the republicans are gaining ground with the minority vote.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I love studing this chart. It seems to say a lot. Notice bush with the upward momentum of minority votes?

I hope I added more to the discussion this time. Also feel free to ignore me. It's funny to come to a VS political debate and then not listen to those that oppose you. Seems very democratic of you. :) btw if you really are here to convert people and change their opinion then you are a complete idiot and not old enough to understand that people have their own opinions and it's rare for a person to change their minds. Take that phrase and think about it "change their mind". How often do you think people really do that? You have one mind...you never exchange it for another one. Your ideas and mind simply grow but rarely does it change.

:)

Enjoy the hyperboles!
 
I wound nail Susan Estrich if given the chance.

Something tells me that nutty chick would be a wild lay. I'd only to it to say I did her but.... I still would.
 
[quote name='defender']I love Ann Coulter. Also it's obvious yer a smart guy. I still don't see any PROOF in your post about the republicans stopping black voters simply because of race. Of course it may be true that some blacks were denied voting because of problems but since it's a true statistics that there are more black inmates one would stand to reason that more blacks would have issues voting if inmates were to be denied voting rights. That doesn't seem racist to me. THe substance I offer is my opinion while not stated as well as yours it's still just my opinion....same as you. I really do honestly believe that in 3-4 elections minorities (you say black but I coun't all minorities i.e. latino population..etc, etc...) will vote more for the republicans than democrats. I don't think that's too far fetched. This again is simply my opinion which I have no need to back up with facts since it's only a prediction. I am not a fortune teller.

A wonderful fact is that even though approval rating for Bush himself is low..the democrats approval rating hasn't inched up a bit. Doesn't that tell you something? Also if Bush really was that poor of a president and the answer was to vote democrat then why did Bush win a second term??? That seems like a good enough point to argue that the republicans are gaining ground with the minority vote.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I love studing this chart. It seems to say a lot. Notice bush with the upward momentum of minority votes?

I hope I added more to the discussion this time. Also feel free to ignore me. It's funny to come to a VS political debate and then not listen to those that oppose you. Seems very democratic of you. :) btw if you really are here to convert people and change their opinion then you are a complete idiot and not old enough to understand that people have their own opinions and it's rare for a person to change their minds. Take that phrase and think about it "change their mind". How often do you think people really do that? You have one mind...you never exchange it for another one. Your ideas and mind simply grow but rarely does it change.

:)

Enjoy the hyperboles![/QUOTE]

Check what I posted about how almost ALL prominent Black Republicans tend to be Right Wing extremists.
I would also like to argue that why should Blacks vote Republican when some Republican politicians clearly use tactics to try to attract racist White voters, case in point, when Rove brought up that McCain had adopted a Black or Mixed baby. Honestly why would this matter unless you were trying to get racist White people or people racist against Blacks to vote for you? Until people like Ken Mehlman publically wipe their hands of people like Karl Rove or make it clear these tactics will NOT be tolerated Blacks will never, EVER feel comfortable in the Republican party. Another example is how we didn't find out Strom Thurmond had a mixed child until he died. Either it was because they were mixed, out of wedlock, or both. While it may be the second reason it certainly makes one suspicious and incidents like this do NOTHING to help the Republicans standing with the Black community. One big thing is Michelle Malkin's stance is that there is nothing wrong with Internment. Lets be honest, of course the average Republican will have no problem with that because how often will it affect them? How often would a White person get interred?
I also understand Black peoples frustration with both parties. One cares nothing for them at all except in an election year and the other takes them for granted.
 
[quote name='defender']I love Ann Coulter. Also it's obvious yer a smart guy. I still don't see any PROOF in your post about the republicans stopping black voters simply because of race. Of course it may be true that some blacks were denied voting because of problems but since it's a true statistics that there are more black inmates one would stand to reason that more blacks would have issues voting if inmates were to be denied voting rights. That doesn't seem racist to me. THe substance I offer is my opinion while not stated as well as yours it's still just my opinion....same as you. I really do honestly believe that in 3-4 elections minorities (you say black but I coun't all minorities i.e. latino population..etc, etc...) will vote more for the republicans than democrats. I don't think that's too far fetched. This again is simply my opinion which I have no need to back up with facts since it's only a prediction. I am not a fortune teller. [/quote]

What I'm interested in seeing is your logic behind this. Some conservatives might say that, for instance, minorities need to awaken themselves and see they're being taken for a ride by Democrats who exploit their poor socioeconomic stature to, with minimal effort, secure their votes. In short, poor minorities tend to vote democrat; better-off people tend to vote Republican regardless of race. I'm just trying to see the logic behind your assertion, as I believe that it's damn near impossible to gather any increase in the black vote (esp. after Katrina; the very public forum in which Barbara Bush's Marie Antoinette impression proved to the nation precisely who the "elites" truly are is, to me, a very bad move that had, very recently, less than 10% support for Bush among blacks).

At any rate, you're saying all minorities; well, Asians have never really been, so far as I can tell, a demanding constituency, so I'll just avoid that part of the question ;). Hispanics are unique; they're spread evenly, right and left. So, the first party to really push for ending illegal immigration is going to capitulate and agree to abandon a significant (and growing) voter bloc. That's a tough call; Bush hasn't done it yet (very surprising, I might add), and I don't see any Democrat pushing it first. So, I suppose this vote depends on who makes the first move to satisfy their white constituency.

Those are the various forms of my dubiousness over your claim. I simply want to know the *how* or the *why* in which this redical shift will happen, from your POV.

A wonderful fact is that even though approval rating for Bush himself is low..the democrats approval rating hasn't inched up a bit. Doesn't that tell you something? Also if Bush really was that poor of a president and the answer was to vote democrat then why did Bush win a second term??? That seems like a good enough point to argue that the republicans are gaining ground with the minority vote.
Click to expand...

Well, it is a zero sum game. I'm sure that this data is available at Pew Research Center, so perhaps I'll look into it today. It seems, however, that you're implying that "republicans are gaining ground" because more minorities are neutral to Democrats? That's an odd claim to make, when you're suggesting that disenfranchisement with one party is not drawing people en masse to another party (as you argue when you say the Dems' numbers aren't going up); how can this be the case, but it holds true in the opposite sense (neutral support for the dems mean the Republicans are gaining ground for minorities)? That's rather contradictory, don't you think?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

I love studing this chart. It seems to say a lot. Notice bush with the upward momentum of minority votes?
Click to expand...

Something that shows a transition from one point in time to another does not indicate momentum; probably not even a trend, really. Current prison populations show that the percentage of the population under the corrections system (incl. parole and probation) is around 3.245%, down from 3.267% a couple years ago. In terms of actual people, that marginal change is pretty big; taken in isolation, though, it looks like the "momentum" is going down. However, this number of people under the system is around 7 million. Thirty years ago, it was around 700,000. So, with that in mind, using data from two points in time, to me anyway, does not indicate anything about momentum, and can, in fact, mask the truth of the matter.

I hope I added more to the discussion this time.
Click to expand...

Yes, and thank you. The very notion of debate is to, to me anyway, to render someone's points of contention so useless and false that they can't reasonably support the arguments they have. Will it work? Probably not. Will I change many minds? I'm not that naive. I do enjoy, however, showing people precisely where their assertions either have inherent contradictions, incorrect assumptions and, when I'm feeling really frisky (or the conversation is about prisons, since that's my thing), showing them the data.

At any rate, my initial dickishness was bore out of my general frustration with, ironically (or hypocritically) enough, the boring-ass pedantic nature of most anonymity-enabled political discourse. Now, taking the "white pride" pop group thread, for example; I'm grateful that CAG is not GameFaqs, as if it were populated by similar people, the thread would be little more than one person supporting the groups' message, and a dozen chewing them out. Because I'm grateful, it irks me to see posts that exhibit little more than regurgitated points without the cognitive explanation. Anyway, I need to get some fuckin' coffee, so yeah...
 
Well I do see work from the side of Republicans to attract voters of all races. It's dangerous for the Repubs to play the race card our front but imho they are positioning themselves by putting minorities in the spotlight. Condelezza Rice is a good example. I think what's funny is the mention of McCain's adopted kids being mixed. I never ever knew that as a republican. I am not sure what context Rove said it but it would appear to me that Rove is part of a Bush's circle of close friends and that includes people of all colors and races.

My wife is black so my 4 kids are mixed (or black as I assume they will be called as they get older). McCain having kids that are mixed only solidifies my loyalty to the republicans. I am a big McCain supporter and I don't believe he is radical at all. I think McCain running for a presidency would do a great deal to capture minority voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top