Nobody Knows The Trouble I've seen
I was originally going to make this subject one or two sentences long as part of a number of offhand comments I'd planned to post today, but it has just expanded into a full-fledged subject of its own, and the other comments will have to wait. I only hope you can.
Earlier this week, I was surprised to find that our very own Lenny (URL withheld due to insignificance) appeared to think that Barry-O was rising above racism. If he'd stopped there, I wouldn't have taken note, but Lenny's young and stupid, and he implied (at least that's how I saw it) that this racism was somehow emanating from the right. That couldn't go unanswered, even if it was Lenny who thought it.
You see, you can point to a number of racists and racial incidents from years past, and of those that can be attributed to a specific party, well, let me ask you, can anyone name anything that a Republican said or did that was distinctly racist?
Let's see, George Wallace was a Democrat... Robert Byrd is. So is Ed Rendell. Meanwhile, President Eisenhower tried and failed to get a civil rights act through, and his failure was due to one man - Lyndon Johnson. And Harry Truman used that dreaded word to describe black people long after he'd left the Presidency.
So did you hear the one about the half a black guy running for President?
The Democratic bigots are coming out of the woodwork. But lest you think this is about the Clintons and their supporters, it isn't. In fact, that's well documented and there's no need to beat a dead horse, even a white one, and no, I'm not referring to Hillary... she's now the dark horse, anyway.
Let me put it this way: remember who our first black President was? That's right, Pasty Bill. Black people loved him. But black guys marry white women more often than the reverse, and Bill is apparently one of them,.because have you heard anyone hailing Hill as the first black woman presidential candidate?
Well, before you think I'm just being silly, consider this: in every election cycle (and many times in between), some jackass in the liberal news media asks the question, "Why can't Republicans attract the black vote?" What does it run, about 90-10 Democratic? The implication is, of course, that Republicans are bigots. No matter that there are other reasons why the Dems get the black vote which I don't need to go into here, other than to say they involve dependency and false promises.
But this has nothing to do with Republicans. It's all Dems, all the time. Now I ask, can't both Hillary and Barry be expected to be FOBs? No, not friends of Bill, blacks! Then why is Obama getting that same disproportionate share of the black vote now when it's two Democrats they're voting for? Now can you say, "Racism?" "Bigotry?" OK, how about "Bigism" or "Racistry?"
No, then consider what James Taranto presented today in a column delightfully titled, We Shall Be Overcome:
Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee is a rarity in Congress: a white lawmaker representing a majority-black district. First elected in 2006 to fill the vacant seat of Harold Ford Jr., Cohen faces a primary challenge this summer from a black candidate, Nikki Tinker. The Washington Post's Mary Ann Akers reports that the campaign against Cohen has gotten unusually ugly:
"Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen and the JEWS HATE Jesus," blares the flier, which Cohen himself received in the mail... Circulated by an African-American minister from Murfreesboro Tenn., which isn't even in Cohen's district... the literature encourages other black leaders in Memphis to "see to it that one and ONLY one black Christian faces this opponent of Christ and Christianity in the 2008 election."
Akers quotes a Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial:
Last summer Cohen came under attack from black ministers for (supporting) federal hate crimes legislation to protect gay rights. The paper wrote that the "real motive" behind the ministers' attacks... revealed later by Rev. Robert Poindexter...: "He's not black and he can't represent me, that's just the bottom line."
Poindexter (has) a misconception about the nature of political representation in a democratic republic... that his congressman's job is to represent him "as a black" rather than as a citizen.
Yet it is this same misrepresentation that has led to deliberate efforts to draw "majority minority" districts like the one Cohen now defends.
As for the anti-Semitic flier, it is evidence of the folly of thinking that a society can practice identity politics without opening itself up to the ugly side of such politics.
So I can understand Hillary getting a lesser share of the black vote than Barry, but nine to one? Is one candidate getting ninety percent of the vote of any other group? Are black women paying Hillary back for stealing one of their men?
Or are blacks voting for Obama because he's almost black like them?
And speaking of that dreaded word, Al Sharpton just said "misconscrewed" on Glenn Beck. I swear! Catch the replay, damnit, why are you always doubting me?
Now c'mon, let's sing, "Sittin' on the dock of the bay... wastin' ti,,i,i, ime..."
Comments
If you want to use the narrower term of "Republicans" instead of "conservatives" as a rhetorical get-out-of-jail-free card, fine. But we both know that there was basically an ideological switch that occurred in the civil rights era.
The liberals were the republicans and the southern conservatives were the democrats. Today's republican party is made up of the same people as the democratic party pre-1960.
If you want to believe that conservatives in America are, as a group, generally NOT more racist than liberals in America, more power to you.
Lenny, you're far more stupid that I give you credit for.
It's just the opposite of what you said - If you want to believe that liberals in America are, as a group, generally NOT more racist than conservatives in America, NOT more power to you, produce some example so more people than just myself can enjoy your stupidity.
Because I give you some, and LBJ was no conservative.Or Truman. Unless you think they were "conservative" because they weren't stupid?
And how about that Texas add against Bush? How about the fact that black conservatives are labeled Uncle Toms?
Is this really a fight you ant to wage? You and yours are the bigots, and it's clear as a bell now.
And you're blind as a bat...
But we've always known that.
I cant believe this is actually up for debate. Two words: Southern Strategy. Youre old enough to remember that right? An entire political strategy, pioneered by the Republicans, to win elections based on white resentment and race-baiting?
You ever venture out of the desert and spend any time in the deep, red, Republican South Ted?
If you want to get more contemporary (and local for you) about it, the whole illegal immigration debate on the right is practically dripping with racism against brown people.
Is this a fight YOU want to wage?
Lenny, this is going to be tough for you, and I say it with a heavy heart, but you're just too ignorant and/or stupid to bother with. In addition, you seem to keep mistaking me for someone who is willing to entertain your not-so-special brand of nonsense. Others have gotten the message, and now so will you, or it will be imposed on you.
Like all little liberals, you have a vivid imagination that fills in the gaps when facts are lacking. You simply decide on the outcome you want, then ignore anything that doesn't lead there. Facts, evidence, logic, proof, these are among the many concepts that have little meaning to you... even though you think they do.
And that's the problem
The illegal immigration issue is the single best example you could pick since I live right in the midst of it and I know that it has noting whatsoever to do with racism. The issue has to do with economics, security, and the rule of law. I
But as always, I'm open to your evidence to the contrary..
In the meantime, I don't know what to say about an individual, you in this case, who manufactures charges of racism for his own advantage, but 'despicable" is too good for you, and considering that I'm more than a little suspicious that you yourself are a closet bigot, we may have to create a term for the likes of you. I'll allow you input though.
As regards you and me, you will always come up with some new off-the-wall stuff as you have with immigration and before that, the conservative transubstantiation or whatever that was you devised to explain how Dem racists are supposedly now Republicans, but.as I said, Dems own bigotry.You think that means that I'm saying every Dem is a bigot and every Republican is pure as the driven snow? It's not black and white. It's charcoal gray and off white.
In other words, you can't point to any specific episodes of significant bigotry on the part of Republicans or you would have (and I don't mean blog entries of people who are even sloppier than you), whereas I have given specifics and I have more if needed. I was, however, amused that you found my examples lacking when you'd produced not a single one of your own..Can you say "chutzpah?" No, I don't suppose you can.
Virtually all charges by Dems that Republicans are racist or that they try to deny people's right to vote are either unsubstantiated or outright lies, and I note that you're not averse to that yourself.
So once again you've presented nothing, and I don't want to hear from you again until you do. And I won't need to because this should keep you busy...
But in the event it doesn't, and you continue to post vague charges and obfuscation, your effort will have been in vain and your slop will magically vanish. I simply won't tell you again that insist people who post here know what they're talking about and that they offer some substance some of the time. I'm now convinced that you don't know the difference between what is admissible and what is, as they say in legal circles, irrelevant, immaterial, or an assumption of facts not in evidence.
Good luck, and if I don't talk to you again, goodbye.