Thanks, Chris. But, I didn’t think that you believe that I am a racist. I wasn’t clear in my post… but, what I meant by “me” wasn’t me, tigerman, but me, anyone. I stated that I could make a reasonable argument that Dem party policies have been detrimental to blacks, and that as such, IMO, I could argue that Dems are racist per your definition. You replied that a belief that Dem, rather than GOP policies are detrimental is sort of bizarro. I’m only saying that whether anyone can be called a “racist” depends upon his or her notions, regardless of whether his/her notions are in fact correct. If person A sincerely believes policy A helps group C, and thus Person A advocates policy A, then I don’t think it accurate to say that Person A is racist because you believe that policy A is in fact detrimental to Group C. That’s a matter of disagreement about the effect of a policy… it says nothing of the mindset of the people who advocate or oppose policy A.
That’s a matter of perspective, I think. As I’ve posted, I grew up in Democratic Pittsburgh and there are LOADS of racists, black and white, who vote only Democrat. What does that prove?
[quote=“Susan Page at USA TODAY”]In his first term, Bush matched [Clinton’s] record set in his first term for appointing women and people of color to the Cabinet, and Bush had a more diverse inner circle at the White House. Since his re-election last month, [Bush] has made a series of groundbreaking nominations.
Bush has named his White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, to be the first Hispanic to hold one of the powerful “big four” Cabinet jobs, attorney general.
He named his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to be the first female African-American secretary of State, the Cabinet’s senior position.
He also nominated Margaret Spellings, his domestic policy adviser, to lead the Education Department and Cuban-born business executive Carlos Gutierrez to head Commerce.
Some political analysts argue that Bush’s appointments and his matter-of-fact approach to them signal a new stage in the racial history of the nation, one in which diversity in the top ranks is taken as a matter of course.
“Bush did not go out and say, ‘I’m going to create an administration that looks like America,’ which is how Clinton led off,” says Paul Light, a political scientist at New York University who has studied presidential appointments. "He has just gone about recruiting a diverse Cabinet as an ordinary act. That’s remarkable in the sense it sends to future administrations: ‘This is just the way we’re going to do business.’ "
In Clinton’s first term, 47% of those he appointed to the Cabinet were women or people of color. Bush had precisely the same percentage in his first term. By the end of Clinton’s second term, his figure had risen to 52%. The seven nominations Bush has made in the past month raise his percentage to 50%. There are two openings in his second-term Cabinet, for the secretaries of Energy and Health and Human Services.
Among Washington insiders, what’s more significant is the demographics of a more amorphous group: the aides and advisers whose counsel Bush trusts most. He is the first president whose innermost circle — the people he relies on in a crunch — includes a woman other than his wife.
Even some Democrats grumbled during the presidential campaign that Bush had more African-Americans and Hispanics among his closest advisers than did Democratic challenger John Kerry, who won a majority of black and Hispanic votes.
"On the Democratic side, we see that and we say, ‘Hmmm,’ " says Donna Brazile, who was Al Gore’s campaign manager in 2000 and is African-American. She credits Bush with instinctively believing that surrounding himself with able women and people of color helps him make better decisions — a lesson she says some Democratic officeholders and candidates have yet to absorb.
One reason it has gotten little attention is because Bush himself rarely talks about it. At a convention of minority journalists in August, Bush declared, “If you look at my administration, it’s diverse, and I’m proud of that.” But he doesn’t cite numbers. Bartlett and other Bush aides sounded surprised when told that Bush’s record on diversity in top jobs matched that of Clinton, who was praised for expanding opportunities for women, blacks and Hispanics.
Until Clinton, presidential Cabinets were overwhelmingly the province of white Anglo men. They made up 85% of the appointments by President Reagan, who over eight years had only one African-American and one Hispanic in his Cabinet. White Anglo men made up 71% of the first President Bush’s Cabinet. (The Cabinet statistics in this story reflect those offices designated by law as Cabinet posts. Some presidents have chosen to give other officials comparable Cabinet-level status.)
Clinton promised to change the government’s complexion. “My commitment is to give you an administration that looks like America,” he said during the 1992 campaign. “I would be astonished if my Cabinet and my administration and my staff … is not the most fully integrated this country has ever seen.”
Over eight years and 29 appointments, Clinton had in his Cabinet five women, seven African-Americans, three Hispanics (one of them named to two posts) and one Asian-American.
Over four years and 24 appointments, Bush has named to his Cabinet five women, four African-Americans, three Hispanics and two Asian-Americans.
Before Bush, no person of color had been named to any of the four most prestigious Cabinet jobs — at the departments of State, Treasury, Defense and Justice. Now he has named two blacks as secretary of State and a Mexican-American as attorney general.[/quote]
And I dunno, doc, but I don’t think many Republicans have any trouble voting for black conservatives… contrast that with the fears that Labor has that its white members will not vote for BHO because he is black:
[quote=“Washington Times”]Labor leader Gerald W. McEntee has a simple plea to white blue-collar workers - don’t be afraid to vote for Sen. Barack Obama because he is black.
“There are some of our local union presidents who are afraid - that’s the word, afraid - to give out literature for Barack Obama,” Mr. McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told a gathering of Illinois delegates at the Democratic National Convention last month.
“You can’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s black? That’s the color of his skin, and that is [irrelevant].”
Mr. McEntee’s concern is shared by other union leaders, who in recent weeks have made unflinching public calls to shame white members to cast aside prejudice and vote for the Illinois senator, who has the overwhelming endorsement of organized labor.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters President James P. Hoffa said unions leaders must confront racism head-on to ensure their members support Mr. Obama.
“There are people who are not going to vote for him because he’s black, and we’ve got to hope that we can educate people to put aside their racism and to put their own interests No. 1,” Mr. Hoffa said at the Democratic convention in Denver.[/quote]
“Uncle Tom” comes from the Harriet Beecher Stowe “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” book - a character both beautiful in terms of his kindly, dutiful nature but deemed equally horrible by later audiences in his subservience to the wishes of white authority figures. But, then, the Uncle Tom character in the book was thought in olden times to personify various Christian values about turning one’s cheek in the middle of being whipped to death by your master’s overseers. I get the feeling that a lot of people toss the “Uncle Tom” pejorative around without considering its origins.
So who and what is an “Uncle Tom”? Probably someone well-meaning, humble, hard-working… someone who doesn’t confront the system in which they exist but defers to the authority of others. It’s predominantly used for blacks, and the historical background of Stowe’s antislavery novel pretty much ensures that.
There are other words used for persons of other ethnic/racial backgrounds who cooperate with or ingratiate themselves with groups who have no actual respect for them, just as there are various words for persons who bootlick or brown-nose (here used in a non-racial context that I hope I don’t have to explain) their way into acceptance in situations in which ethnic/racial background is not a factor.
Blacks within the Republican Party may get accusations of being “Uncle Toms” if they don’t speak out against the current tactics used by the GOP and, in the alternative, keep silent so as not to piss off the powers that be within the largely white-run GOP. Back in the old days, before Southern Democrats went Republican in the early 1960s in response to all that civil right and voting rights laws that started to let blacks vote again, it’s perhaps not hard to see that a similar comparison would be made. Republican J.C. Watts’ criticism of his own party may well make him an exception: lvrj.com/opinion/10734976.html
[quote]For longer than I’ve been involved in the political process, the Republican establishment has claimed to want to provide an alternative for the black community, yet party elite refuse to show up for the game.
The more I ponder some of the boneheaded decisions GOP candidates have made of late, I can’t bring myself to believe that they are serious about capturing more than about 8 percent of the black vote.
I have often said one of the reasons more blacks don’t support Republicans is because they don’t trust the GOP establishment. I can, without fear of contradiction, assure you the Conventional Wisdom Caucus and the Status Quo Caucus and the same-old-tired-establishment consultants are running the GOP front-runners’ campaigns – and aiming to get no more than 1/12th of the black vote.
As evidence, I point to Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, who was the only Republican presidential candidate to speak at the Urban League convention in July, and the fact that none of the Big Four GOP candidates showed up at Morgan State University (a historically black college) for a candidate forum hosted by National Public Radio commentator Tavis Smiley. Hmmm.
I’m perplexed by these actions because candidates say one thing about inclusion and outreach but they do another. How can you do outreach and not reach out? Not showing up for these events was a grievous and inexplicable error. I certainly don’t consider inclusion to be baking a cake, then having me watch as everyone else eats it, as today’s consultants would seemingly have us believe.
Inclusion is asking me to help in making the cake, and sharing in its tasty delight. This is the message the presidential candidates send when they show up at these forums.
Once in the general election, and safely out of the cloistered world of Republican primary politics, our nominee will want to trot out black faces – usually black Republicans – to try to win the black vote. This is insulting when you consider he likely didn’t show up at events that were established to reach out to the black community. Trust me, these candidates will pay a price in the general election.[/quote]
I also see a bit of wordplay going on here in that some folks apparently wishes to redefine “racism” to mean the effort by some to even try to acknowledge that people with different immutable characteristics are treated differently within the American society and then to try to make that “racism” equivalent to the sort of white-sheet “racism” decent people condemn. What it comes down to is that people commonly decry “racism” in the way that people think of it 99.9% of the time as being an equivalent of “bigotry”. And yet there’s that wee .1% usage that involves any kind of differentiation whatsoever, even where the intention can be completely opposite of the main usage. And so the argument rages over page after page of Forumosa thusly:
poster1: I hate racism.
poster2: I hate racism too. But the fact that your eyes can tell the difference between the skin tone of a black person and a white person means that you are capable of discrimination, and thus, you are practicing racism.
poster1: That’s not the “racism” I’m talking about.
poster2: Yes it is!
poster1: Well, I don’t hate anybody for being of a different race.
poster2: Doesn’t matter. You’re racist. Oh, and by the way, you and your kind are not welcome in my country club.
poster1: What?
poster2: We have a race-neutral policy barring persons with brown eyes, curly hair and tans from coming in. George Hamilton is not welcome until he proves his hair is not artificially straightened.
poster1: But that definition would also bar blacks from entering. That doesn’t seem fair.
poster2: The fact that you have just mentioned blacks reinforces the fact that you’re racist.
poster1: But…
poster2: I’m not listening… LALALALALALALALALALALALALA…
Going back to the original premise of this thread, what I can’t figure out is why on earth Republicans who normally figure that everyone should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and take personal responsibility for their lives would expect that Obama ought to be personally paving roads and fixing the infrastructure of all parts of Africa where he might have relatives. What, did the GOP get all weepy all of a sudden, or are they just being hypocrites? My guess is the latter.
I strongly agree with Chris, because in the process of trying to turn the election in one’s favor, the rights of people of a certain minority are intentionally violated. The act is racist and unethical, even if the underlying motivation is just selfish and unethical.
(Wouldn’t you know it! F.com freezes when I’m trying to respond to this!)
Tigerman, I have never accused you of being racist. I’m confident that you are not.
I do believe, however, that there’s a significantly higher degree of racism infesting the GOP than infesting the Dems. That’s not to say the Dems have no racists among them…they certainly do.[/quote]
Again, apparently being Chris’s political twin, I agree with him, and perhaps I’ll just stop posting and let him talk for me.
Of course, a party that warmly embraces the sentiments of this button sold throughout the recent Texas GOP convention (quite popular item, I hear) may have different motivations than folks who think (rightly or wrongly) that blacks in America need affirmative-action to equalize things up a bit from the old slavery days.
While there might be a debate as to whether so-called “affirmative action” actually has a net effect of helping or harming American society, I don’t know what good arguments Republicans have for welcoming sales of this button at their convention and GOP members proudly wearing it about. What on earth has happened to the “Party of Lincoln”?
“[color=#008000]I think that [Thomas] has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court,” Reid said. “I think his opinions are poorly written[/color].”
Prodded to cite an example, the Democratic leader replied:
“[color=#40BF00]That’s easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. It’s like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared with somebody who just graduated from Harvard[/color].”
[color=#BF0000]But there was no dissent written by Scalia in the 2003 case of Hillside Dairy v. Lyons. And Thomas’ entire dissent consisted of this paragraph:[/color]
“[color=#4080BF]I join Parts I and III of the Court’s opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that (section) 144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. 7254, ‘does not clearly express an intent to insulate California’s pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge.’ Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because ‘the negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application,’ Camps Newfoundland/Owatonna Inc. vs. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 464, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J, dissenting) and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute[/color].”
Angela Onwuachi-Willig, a [color=#4000BF]liberal Democrat and law professor who is black[/color], said Reid’s erroneous attack on Thomas appeared to be motivated by racism. “[color=#4000FF]It is the black justice who cannot write opinions, articulate independent thoughts or perform his job well[/color],” she said, writing in the Chicago Tribune. “[color=#0000FF]The exact same comments were made about the late Justice Thurgood Marshall[/color].”[/quote]
J. Thomas’ dissent might be brief in that case, but it certainly doesn’t look like an eighth-grade dissertation… :s
Regarding Reid, my guess is that his mistake in citing the Hillside Dairy case is dumb but perhaps the standards are lower for lawyers like him in a state (Nevada) that up until relatively recently didn’t even have a law school within its borders. I don’t really get why 8th graders in Nevada would be writing “dissertations” or why he thinks recent Harvard graduates write well, given the continuing large number of legacy slots for admissions there. Racist based on this? Nope – he probably cited the wrong case.
The basic concept that Clarence Thomas is not as accomplished or bright is not an uncommon one, and such discussions about the relative smarts of other supreme court justices has gone on for a long time, regardless of the race or ethnicity. But, the accusation that Thomas has largely served as “Scalia’s second vote” has not been made baseless by his record.
Onawuachi-Willig has taken a leap of logic here, taking offense at Reid’s erroneous negative statement about Thomas’ performance and then attempting to connect it to alleged criticisms about Thurgood Marshall. As far as I can tell, Reid is fine with Thurgood Marshall – even recommended Marshall’s son to the Postal Service’s board of governors. So, if it is not Reid who has tried to lay waste to any and all black supreme court justices, who is Onwuachi-Willig talking about? Some generic attackers from past decades? When Thurgood Marshall was the NAACP’s lawyer, he took on cases in towns where his own personal safety was very much at risk, knocked segregation on its ass in Brown v. Board of Ed., and on the Supreme Court he used his direct experience in the southern criminal courts to fundamentally improve the fairness of the court systems’ treatment of the accused. I’m not the only person to think Thomas does not measure up to Marshall, but then few justices would. Onwuachi-Willig is a relatively young (oops, that means I’m being ageist?) professor, so perhaps with time she’ll improve.
So, getting back to the button, I’m curious how the sales are going among the GOP faithful. Still selling like hotcakes?
That’s just plain offesive, and stupid, on several levels.
[quote=“mofangongren”]Regarding Reid, my guess is that his mistake in citing the Hillside Dairy case is dumb but perhaps the standards are lower for lawyers like him in a state (Nevada) that up until relatively recently didn’t even have a law school within its borders. I don’t really get why 8th graders in Nevada would be writing “dissertations” or why he thinks recent Harvard graduates write well, given the continuing large number of legacy slots for admissions there. Racist based on this? Nope – he probably cited the wrong case.
The basic concept that Clarence Thomas is not as accomplished or bright is not an uncommon one…[/quote]
It may be a common notion among libs and dims… but, is there any objective evidence to support that notion?
I mean, I get that libs and dims don’t like his ideas… but, what is it about his scholarship/intellect that they find lacking?
That’s just plain offesive, and stupid, on several levels.[/quote]
I would think so, but of course, the Texas GOP convention was happy to have him as a vendor throughout their event. Now that the button is a little embarrassing for the GOP, it is no longer sold via the vendor’s website at republicanmarket.com/store/home. Although I bet he can sell some on the side to interested parties… if he didn’t completely sell out his whole stock already.
I don’t think somebody would offer that for sale at a Democratic event; the Dems tend to have active participation from blacks as members, candidates and voters, so the environment is a bit different from GOP events where there are very few minorities welcomed apart from those speakers who will conveniently provide a thin veneer of tolerance. As one GOP convention-goer once complained (wishing for greater black involvement), there are usually more blacks onstage than there are in the entire arena.
Perhaps some of the GOPpers can explain how this vendor’s business was able to thrive throughout the Texas convention this year. After all, the GOP Texas convention is a “private” event – there’s no real freedom of speech issue, so they could’ve told the guy the buttons were very much out of line any time they wanted. Instead, to all accounts, they were lining up to get these buttons.
Former Republican congressional candidate and regular Fox guest Hal Turner has this to say about Obama:
[quote]If putting lipstick on a pig still leaves you with a pig, does putting half white genes in a nigger still leave you with a nigger?
I wonder how Obama would answer that?
Hardball goes both ways. Ain’t politics grand?[/quote]
Here’s a bit more of Hal Turner’s horrible pro-McCain rhetoric:
[quote]Now that the cat’s out of the bag, we are free to use more blunt language so kindly allow me to do so: I do not want a half-breed negro prancing around the White House in a loin cloth, smoking crack or getting blow-jobs from queers in the Oval office.
I see no reason at all to allow a Communistic negro to occupy the most powerful political office on earth. I see no reason at all to allow a sub-human to do for the United States, what his sub-human pals have done in their countries like Zimbabwe, South Africa and other black-run failed states.[/quote]
Of course, Hal Turner’s free to rant all he wants in America… which gets back to the question: If Hal Turner could be a Republican congressional candidate with views like these and if that racist anti-Obama button could be sold all throughout the Texas GOP convention, what the heck is going on with the Party of Lincoln?
The GOP used to be at the forefront of the anti-racist movement in the slavery days, with Lincoln’s election being deemed by some to be the “final straw” leading to Fort Sumter. Leading lights of the Republican Party (and Lincoln’s cabinet) in those days included great men, like Salmon Chase and William Seward, who had a longstanding commitment to the abolition of slavery. The current state of the party is as if we were suddenly now to find out that IBM had originally been founded as a secret society of luddites, that the ASPCA had once stood for the “American Society for Practicing Cruelty to Animals” or that the term “Volunteer Fire Department” included persons who volunteer to set fires.
Now, I realize some say the Democrats made a “big mistake” when they forsook much of its hardcore racist base to enact laws and policies that would help blacks be able to vote and do away with segregation. I’d be hard put to find a greater example of political suicide committed to do the right thing. Guys like Strom Thurmond bolted off to form the Dixiecrat Party in defense of ensuring whites wouldn’t have to go to the same schools, eat at the same restaurants or drink from the same fountains as blacks. Thurmond’s one-issue pro-segregation presidency is something that was a turning point in the mind of many leading Republicans like Trent Lott, who committed an example of political suicide committed to what might charitably be called the “wrong thing” when he gave his great oration on how Thurmond’s pro-segregation ideas would have made us a much better place.
And thus, the racist Democrats of yore simply changed parties but not beliefs, and they’ve found their beliefs highly welcomed in the modern GOP. Just ask Hal Turner.
The worst thing is that it’s working. The grandees of F.com may claim that it’s the better candidate winning when McCain straggles home come November, however it’s not, it’s the most smears winning.
A bit sad that McCain can’t just debate based on ideas and have to rely on lies and distorsions to win.
If Hal Turner could be a Republican congressional candidate…
And thus, the racist Democrats of yore simply changed parties but not beliefs, and they’ve found their beliefs highly welcomed in the modern GOP. Just ask Hal Turner.[/quote]
I’d never heard of this Hal Turner guy, so I Googled him and found this on Wikipedia:
The worst thing is that it’s working. The grandees of F.com may claim that it’s the better candidate winning when McCain straggles home come November, however it’s not, it’s the most smears winning.
A bit sad that McCain can’t just debate based on ideas and have to rely on lies and distorsions to win.
[quote=“Barack Obama July 17, 2007”]“Now keep in mind that we’ve been in this fight, Pam and I, back in Illinois when I was the chairman of the Health Care Committee, helped to push through legislation. And I remember Alan Keyes, I ran against Alan Keyes [laughter] I don’t know if you guys remember Alan Keyes. But I remember him using this in a, his campaign against me saying, [mimicking Alan Keyes] “Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergartners.” [Laughter] And, which I didn’t know what to tell him.
But it’s the right thing to do, you know, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.” [/quote]
Tigerman, Hal Turner is a regular Fox guest and has had a long-standing relationship as a commentator that Sean Hannity has always welcomed since before Hannity was a big TV guy for Fox. Turner’s radio program had massive numbers of loyal dittoheads until he decided to focus on the internet medium. As to whether there’s another Republican group in Hudson County that has a turf war with Hal and his legions of Republican supporters, I can’t know. Perhaps following a “night of the long knives”, the Republicans will be able to neaten up their image a bit to look more responsible…
Some information on Hannity’s close relationship with Hal Turner, the Republican neo-Nazi:
[quote=“mofangongren”]Tigerman, Hal Turner is a regular Fox guest and has had a long-standing relationship as a commentator that Sean Hannity has always welcomed since before Hannity was a big TV guy for Fox. Turner’s radio program had massive numbers of loyal dittoheads until he decided to focus on the internet medium. As to whether there’s another Republican group in Hudson County that has a turf war with Hal and his legions of Republican supporters, I can’t know. Perhaps following a “night of the long knives”, the Republicans will be able to neaten up their image a bit to look more responsible…
Some information on Hannity’s close relationship with Hal Turner, the Republican neo-Nazi:
Unless the Wikipedia notes I cited are incorrect, it is obvious that this Hal Turner is not a Republican… he was not, as you stated, a Republican candidate.
Are there some racist Republicans? Of course. But, I have seen MANY Democrat racists who think and feel the same way this nitwit does.
