US Politics - The Party of Chains

[TainanCowboy]

Maybe a bit US-centric, but a look at the Democratic Party and its effects on Blacks in the USA.

[quote]Party of Chains
The greatest oppressors of blacks have been Democrats, says Bruce Bartlett.
8 February 2008
Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, by Bruce Bartlett (Palgrave Macmillan, 288 pp., $26.95)

Two years ago, on his Daily Kos website, Markos Moulitsas asked: “Is it any wonder the GOP is the party of racists?” While Moulitsas conceded that “not every Republican is a racist,” he maintained that “the opposite—every racist is a Republican—is just about right.”

Such sentiments typify a common view that racism is the soul of the Republican Party, and that black Republicans are traitors to their race, or at least peculiar. Bruce Bartlett sets the record straight in Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past, in which he observes to the contrary that “virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” Democrats are today best known as the party of the “little man,” but the party’s original agrarian base included plantation owners distinctly uninterested in the abolition of slavery. The Democratic Party, then, was home to politicians determined to maintain blacks as possessions.
(read the article at the link)
city-journal.org/2008/bc0208jm.html[/quote]

I also highly recommend the web site CITY JOURNAL

Also see:

The Racist History of the Democratic Party

[anon38216271]

Is this your black history month contribution? Okay I accept.

[quote]
History reveals that every piece of racist legislation that was ever passed and every racist terrorist attack that was ever inflicted on African Americans, was initiated by the members of the Democratic Party[/quote]

Wow, that’s painting with some pretty broad strokes there. I only glanced at the rest, I will have to go back and read later(it will be in a holding pattern behind the two novels, and 5 chapters I must read for school this week) to see how they support their argument.

[Mr_He]

I wonder how members the democrats currently have on their books, which actively suppressed african-americans.

Political parties are the sum of their members, and for the Dems, that has seen a huge shift since 1865. (Or 1964 for that matter).

[Chris]

It’s well known that the Democrats were racist for much of their history. This isn’t news. But “history” is the key word here. In this case, it means “before the 1960s”. And the Democratic Party is much older than the so-called Grand “Old” Party.

The Dems’ advocacy and passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 pretty much put and end to racism within the party. The Dems essentially said there was no more room for racism within the party, and the racist Democrats (the Dixiecrats) fled to the Republican Party.

Nowadays, which party in the US is overwhelmingly supported by African-Americans?

[anon38216271]

[quote=“Chris”]
Nowadays, which party in the US is overwhelmingly supported by African-Americans?[/quote]

Anyone that P.Diddy holds.

Ohhh, bad girl, Nama, bad girl…

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“Chris”]The Dems’ advocacy and passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 pretty much put and end to racism within the party.[/quote]Ya might wanna do some checking on this one. Republicans made the Civil Rights and Voting Acts happen. Sen. Dirkson, a Republican, from Illinois worked with LBJ and got the GOP to support the bills. Gore’s Dad voted against both acts.
See Senator Dirksen and Civil Rights.[quote=“Chris”]The Dems essentially said there was no more room for racism within the party, and the racist Democrats (the Dixiecrats) fled to the Republican Party.[/quote]Ah…the ever tossed red herring of “those racist southern Republicans!”. A myth then as well as now. ‘Jim Crow’ laws were the result of Democratic machine politics. The Republican Party was formed to end slavery, while the Democratic Party fought tooth and nail to keep slavery in place.
Time to mention that the so-called “radical” Republicans were called “radical” because they wanted to give blacks their full rights way back in the Civil War days. But who fought them? You got it.

Lincoln had selected Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, as his compromise running mate, but after Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson and the Democrats thwarted black rights, particularly in the South. Not until nearly one hundred years later did African Americans finally get the rights that Republicans had tried to give them immediately following the Civil War.

At that point, A Democrat LBJ, decided to take another strategy against blacks: make them as dependent as possible on government. And man did it ever work. It destroyed the black family, and created decades of a broken family society that depended on Uncle Sugar, but it got blacks to vote 90+% for the Demo Party.[quote=“Chris”]Nowadays, which party in the US is overwhelmingly supported by African-Americans?[/quote]Yes…yes it is. For now.

[MikeN]

@TainanCowboy

[quote=“Chris”]The Dems’ advocacy and passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 pretty much put and end to racism within the party.[/quote]Ya might wanna do some checking on this one. Republicans made the Civil Rights and Voting Acts happen. Sen. Dirkson, a Republican, from Illinois worked with LBJ and got the GOP to support the bills. Gore’s Dad voted against both acts.

Yep, here’s the vote

[quote]By party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 164-96   (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22   (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 186-35   (80%-20%)[/quote]

So it was more strongly supported by Rs than Ds, even though it was introduced by a Democratic president.

Here’s a further breakdown:

[quote]By party and region

Note : “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)[/quote]

So the opposition among Democrats came almost entirely from Southerners.

And what happened to them? They either became Republicans, like Strom Thurmond, or were replaced by segregationists like Jesse Helms and Trent Lott, both Democrats who switched to the Republicans after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

The Southern Democrats who remained, like Eastland and Stennis, had to gradually back off from their earlier stands (whether their hearts were in it or not) and were replaced by Republicans when they retired.

Nixon’s successful Southern Strategy was based on luring the racists to the Republicans, where they have remained happily ensconced ever since.

[Chewycorns]

@TainanCowboy

At that point, A Democrat LBJ, decided to take another strategy against blacks: make them as dependent as possible on government. And man did it ever work. It destroyed the black family, and created decades of a broken family society that depended on Uncle Sugar, but it got blacks to vote 90+% for the Demo Party.

Yip. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said as much in 1965 and was attacked by liberals within his own party.

@Moynihan Report

The fundamental problem, in which this is most clearly the case, is that of family structure. The evidence — not final, but powerfully persuasive — is that the Negro family in the urban ghettos is crumbling. A middle class group has managed to save itself, but for vast numbers of the unskilled, poorly educated city working class the fabric of conventional social relationships has all but disintegrated. There are indications that the situation may have been arrested in the past few years, but the general post war trend is unmistakable. So long as this situation persists, the cycle of poverty and disadvantage will continue to repeat itself.

Moynihan himself often said of the uniquely American brand of public policymaking that Americans were Jeffersonian in their rhetoric but Hamiltonian in their practice. By which he meant that we are constantly going on and on about our beliefs in the virtues of limited government while simultaneously insisting that government do more and more for us. This long bifurcation in political philosophy–between the conservative view represented by Jefferson of that government which governs least being best, and the progressive view of Hamilton that only a large and active federal government can ensure the blessings of the American promise–has endured from their day to ours. It is one of those ironies of American history that Jefferson, who was philosophically the godfather of conservatism, is touted by the Democrats as the founder of their party, whereas Lincoln, who was philosophically a progressive liberal, is revered as the founder of the Republican Party. The irony of course was produced by one of those shifts in the magnetic poles of American politics when, pivoting on the election of 1912, Teddy Roosevelt took the progressives out of the Republican Party and Woodrow Wilson simultaneously invited them into the Democratic Party. Franklin Roosevelt then cemented this role-switch with the New Deal and ever since Democrats have been thought to be liberals and Republicans conservatives, even though their respective founding fathers would have been horrified to find themselves leading these two parades.

Moynihan was an ardent Hamiltonian to his core, who moved rather freely between the liberal and conservative camps, depending on the merits of the case as viewed through his expansive mastery of political theory and history. He understood something that all party ideologues must miss in order to maintain their ideological purity. He understood that given the persistence of this division between liberals and conservatives, it is improbable to suppose one side has a monopoly on wisdom and the other is utterly bankrupt. So Moynihan scandalized the Democratic Party when he served as a liberal insider in the Nixon White House, propelling Nixon to become–in the arena of domestic policy–arguably the last liberal President of the twentieth century.

Moynihan’s first big splash in the pool of politics came in 1965 when he authored a famous report on the status of the African-American family (The Negro Family: The Case for National Action). Moynihan was concerned that two historic trendlines had suddenly changed course and had crossed, unexpectedly and thus ominously. Traditionally, as unemployment rose so did welfare dependency, and as unemployment declined so too followed the size of the welfare rolls. But in 1963 these two lines were moving in opposite directions for African-Americans. Moynihan discovered that the number of black families on welfare was rising at a time when unemployment was declining. His report was a brief for vigorous government action to intervene to address this emerging social problem. But since his report documented serious social maladies within the black family–most especially, rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and a concomitant rise in the number of female-headed households–his report was hooted at by liberals and Moynihan was pilloried as a racist and his report trashed and buried.

dol.gov/oasam/programs/histo … ynihan.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_ … nal_Action

@City Journal

To go back to the political and social moment before the battle broke out over the Moynihan report is to return to a time before the country’s discussion of black poverty had hardened into fixed orthodoxies—before phrases like “blaming the victim,” “self-esteem,” “out-of-wedlock childbearing” (the term at the time was “illegitimacy”), and even “teen pregnancy” had become current. While solving the black poverty problem seemed an immense political challenge, as a conceptual matter it didn’t seem like rocket science. Most analysts assumed that once the nation removed discriminatory legal barriers and expanded employment opportunities, blacks would advance, just as poor immigrants had.

Conditions for testing that proposition looked good. Between the 1954 Brown decision and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legal racism had been dismantled. And the economy was humming along; in the first five years of the sixties, the economy generated 7 million jobs.

Yet those most familiar with what was called “the Negro problem” were getting nervous. About half of all blacks had moved into the middle class by the mid-sixties, but now progress seemed to be stalling. The rise in black income relative to that of whites, steady throughout the fifties, was sputtering to a halt. More blacks were out of work in 1964 than in 1954. Most alarming, after rioting in Harlem and Paterson, New Jersey, in 1964, the problems of the northern ghettos suddenly seemed more intractable than those of the George Wallace South.

Moynihan, then assistant secretary of labor and one of a new class of government social scientists, was among the worriers, as he puzzled over his charts. One in particular caught his eye. Instead of rates of black male unemployment and welfare enrollment running parallel as they always had, in 1962 they started to diverge in a way that would come to be called “Moynihan’s scissors.” In the past, policymakers had assumed that if the male heads of household had jobs, women and children would be provided for. This no longer seemed true. Even while more black men—though still “catastrophically” low numbers—were getting jobs, more black women were joining the welfare rolls. Moynihan and his aides decided that a serious analysis was in order.

Convinced that “the Negro revolution . . . , a movement for equality as well as for liberty,” was now at risk, Moynihan wanted to make several arguments in his report. The first was empirical and would quickly become indisputable: single-parent families were on the rise in the ghetto. But other points were more speculative and sparked a partisan dispute that has lasted to this day. Moynihan argued that the rise in single-mother families was not due to a lack of jobs but rather to a destructive vein in ghetto culture that could be traced back to slavery and Jim Crow discrimination. Though black sociologist E. Franklin Frazier had already introduced the idea in the 1930s, Moynihan’s argument defied conventional social-science wisdom. As he wrote later, “The work began in the most orthodox setting, the U.S. Department of Labor, to establish at some level of statistical conciseness what ‘everyone knew’: that economic conditions determine social conditions. Whereupon, it turned out that what everyone knew was evidently not so.”

But Moynihan went much further than merely overthrowing familiar explanations about the cause of poverty. He also described, through pages of disquieting charts and graphs, the emergence of a “tangle of pathology,” including delinquency, joblessness, school failure, crime, and fatherlessness that characterized ghetto—or what would come to be called underclass—behavior. Moynihan may have borrowed the term “pathology” from Kenneth Clark’s The Dark Ghetto, also published that year. But as both a descendant and a scholar of what he called “the wild Irish slums”—he had written a chapter on the poor Irish in the classic Beyond the Melting Pot—the assistant secretary of labor was no stranger to ghetto self-destruction. He knew the dangers it posed to “the basic socializing unit” of the family. And he suspected that the risks were magnified in the case of blacks, since their “matriarchal” family had the effect of abandoning men, leaving them adrift and “alienated.”

More than most social scientists, Moynihan, steeped in history and anthropology, understood what families do. They “shape their children’s character and ability,” he wrote. “By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child.” What children learned in the “disorganized home[s]” of the ghetto, as he described through his forest of graphs, was that adults do not finish school, get jobs, or, in the case of men, take care of their children or obey the law. Marriage, on the other hand, provides a “stable home” for children to learn common virtues. Implicit in Moynihan’s analysis was that marriage orients men and women toward the future, asking them not just to commit to each other but to plan, to earn, to save, and to devote themselves to advancing their children’s prospects. Single mothers in the ghetto, on the other hand, tended to drift into pregnancy, often more than once and by more than one man, and to float through the chaos around them. Such mothers are unlikely to “shape their children’s character and ability” in ways that lead to upward mobility. Separate and unequal families, in other words, meant that blacks would have their liberty, but that they would be strangers to equality. Hence Moynihan’s conclusion: “a national effort towards the problems of Negro Americans must be directed towards the question of family structure.”

city-journal.org/html/15_3_black_family.html

[Gao_Bohan]

Excellent summation, MikeN. I am interested to see Tainan Cowboy’s response.

[TainanCowboy]

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]Excellent summation, MikeN. I am interested to see Tainan Cowboy’s response.[/quote]MikeN -
I would say ‘interesting’ rather than ‘excellent.’
I do believe, I am going from hazy memory here, that there was more than one vote taken on the issue you are posting. This is what motivated Sen. Dirksen to seek further action with Repubs in moving them towards support of this bill.
Might I see the link to sourcing for that information?

The deterioration of the American Black family unit as a result of the policies enacted by various Democratic admins has been well documented…Cheweys post give illustration of that.

As to the inference that the flight of racially discriminating Demo pols to the Republican party has turned the Repub party into a haven for racial, anti-Black, legislation…that has not been shown to e true. Indeed it would be illegal for such activities to be pursued in bills out forward or legislature enacted.
The USA does have laws against such things…eh?

[Chris]

@TainanCowboy

The deterioration of the American Black family unit as a result of the policies enacted by various Democratic admins has been well documented.

Yeah, right. Sounds like Limbaughian dittoing to me.

In what way were Carter and Clinton anti-minority? And in what way were Reagan and Bush pro-minority?

[quote]As to the inference that the flight of racially discriminating Demo pols to the Republican party has turned the Repub party into a haven for racial, anti-Black, legislation…that ha.s not been shown to e true. Indeed it would be illegal for such activities to be pursued in bills out forward or legislature enacted.
The USA does have laws against such things…eh?[/quote]

Which party has consistently opposed affirmative action and hate crimes legislation? What about the racism of folks like Limbaugh (too numerous to list, but “Barack the Magic Negro”, “halfrican-American” and his rant about a black quarterback come to mind), Trent Lott, George “Macaca” Allen, James Watt, etc.? What about the voter disenfranchisement efforts of the GOP in Florida and Ohio (caging lists)? The Willie Horton ads? The “welfare queen” propaganda? The Southern Strategy? Republican support of Bob Jones University during its recent period of segregation? Reagan visiting Bitburg Cemetery, and when criticized by Jewish groups, he rebuffed them? The GOP accusation during the 2000 campaign that McCain had fathered a “black baby”? George W.'s refusal to meet with the family of James Byrd? The GOP’s constant reluctance to speak in front of black organizations or meet with black civil rights leaders? Bush’s appointment of racist judge Charles Pickering? The anti-Harold Ford ads in Tennessee? And then there’s the whole Confederate flag issue…

Racism in the Democratic Party is pre-1965…before I was even born. Ancient history. Everyone knows that; nobody denies it. Since that time, 43 years ago, Democrats have made anti-discrimination one of their strong suits.

Clinton appointed more women and minorities to the federal judicial bench in his first three years than his two predecessors did in their entire terms. There is far more racial diversity among Democratic congress members than Republican. The only minority Republican presidential candidate in recent memory has been that whacko Alan Keyes, compared to quite a few more among the Democrats. Hate crimes and affirmative action laws are overwhelmingly supported by Democrats.

One thing’s for sure: It’s become harder and harder for Republicans to be racist, which is why in recent years they’ve directed their hatred toward gays. Gotta hate someone.

[TainanCowboy]

Chris -

“…before I was even born.”

And there might be the reason for your …uhh…‘confusion.’

And you might want to more fully consider your comment about Pres Reagan and what effect his policies had on the Black economic situation.
As to Clinton*s ‘minority’ appointments…lol…yes…they’ve kept the DOJ busy for a number of years…LOL!

[Chewycorns]

@Chris

Racism in the Democratic Party is pre-1965…before I was even born. Ancient history. Everyone knows that; nobody denies it.

Oh really?

Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown” in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post. He never apologized for it.

Sharpton is well known for the “Diamond Merchants” comment about Jews which eventually incited a rock-throwing demonstration and precipitated the stabbing death of a young Jewish man with his assailants shouting “Kill the Jew!” Sharpton never apologized.

Some other comments:

“I’m not going to use the federal government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.”

–Jimmy Carter, 1976
President, 1977-81
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2002

“Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

–Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993
Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984

“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.”

–Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

“You cannot go into a Dunkin’ Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

“My
state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the
eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything
[but] a Northeastern liberal state.”

“I mean, you got
the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate
and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.”

“There’s
less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There
is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in
Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what
you’re dealing with.”

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., (D., Del.), 2006-07
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 1987-95
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

[Chris]

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Chris -

“…before I was even born.”

And there might be the reason for your …uhh…‘confusion.’[/quote]

How so? Indeed, I’ve found the more I learn, read and think, the more liberal (= freedom-loving) I become.

And you might want to more fully consider your comment about Pres Reagan and what effect his policies had on the Black economic situation.

Under Raygun (two can play at that childish game), the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. And the poor included perhaps the majority of minorities. Under Clinton, the poor got richer and the rich got richer (Isn’t that what’s best? Everyone benefits?). Minorities fared far better under Clinton than under Reagan, Bush or Bush.

[Mother_Theresa]

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]As to the inference that the flight of racially discriminating Demo pols to the Republican party has turned the Repub party into a haven for racial, anti-Black, legislation…that has not been shown to e true. Indeed it would be illegal for such activities to be pursued in bills out forward or legislature enacted.
The USA does have laws against such things…eh?[/quote]

Not exactly. The Bush administration doesn’t wear white sheets, but they might as well.

The Bush Administration’s zealous focus on long-term tax cuts for the well-off has ignored job creation during the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression, while putting a severe long-term burden on our nation’s finances. The result has been a triple-burn for African Americans: They have suffered disproportionately from the failure of job creation; they have received the least from some of the most expensive tax cuts in history; and the squeeze placed on budgetary priorities has been acute in education, healthcare, public housing, job training, small business development, and other areas vital to students, working families and entrepreneurs.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q … i_n9364163

[quote]PRESIDENT’S BUDGET AND AFRICAN AMERICANS. . .

Squanders $1.7 trillion on tax breaks for the wealthy as African American families struggle to make ends meet. . .

Slashes funding for Medicare and Medicaid, even as the number of African Americans without health insurance climbs above 7.4 million. . .

Does not address the needs of African American households facing higher home heating costs and bigger bills at the pump. . .

Cuts housing assistance for Katrina survivors and slashes programs for revitalizing communities. . .

Betrays the nearly 8 million African American children enrolled in K-12 school. . .

Shortchanges college opportunity. . .

Leaves veterans and troops behind. . .

Cuts grants for local law enforcement and first responders. . .

Critically underfunds small business programs, impacting the 1.2 million African American-owned small businesses. . .

Denies job training opportunities. . .

Cuts nutrition for seniors and children, including school lunch. . .[/quote]
house.gov/schakowsky/2007Bud … ricans.doc

[quote]African Americans’ median income declined by an average of 1.6 percent per year under the current administration. . .

African Americans’ usual median weekly earnings have stagnated under Bush. . .

Under Bush, the percent of African Americans without health insurance has increased from 18.5 percent to 20.5 percent. . .

The growth rate of the number of employed African Americans has been 4.2 times slower under the current administration than it was during the 1990s. . .

The employment to population ratio for African Americans has declined faster than that of the Whites under the current administration. . .

Unemployment levels for African Americans increased by an average of 0.2 percent each year under the current administration after declining in the 1990s. . .

The increase in African-American homeownership has been slower under Bush than the 1990s. . .

More African Americans are in poverty under Bush. . .[/quote]
americanprogress.org/issues/ … genda.html

[quote]Aggressive legal tactics by the Bush administration have deliberately undermined a landmark 1997 civil rights settlement with African-American farmers, turning the claims process into another chapter in a long history of discriminatory treatment by the US Department of Agriculture. . .

almost nine out of 10 black farmers have been denied compensation for discrimination over USDA crop loans, even though U.S. District Court for the District Columbia – in approving the settlement – had described compensation payment as “automatic.” Instead the USDA, under the leadership of President Bush’s Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, has withheld three-quarters of the $2.3 billion agreed to in the settlement. . .

African-American farmers brought suit against USDA in 1997 in an historic civil rights case known as Pigford V. Glickman (now titled Pigford V. Veneman), claiming that USDA systematically discriminated against African-Americans by denying them crop loans readily made available to comparable white farmers. . .

The Reagan administration eliminated the USDA’s Office of Civil Rights in 1982, leaving African-American farmers no avenue for appealing loan denials they believed to be discriminatory.

In 1996, the Clinton administration re-established USDA’s office of Civil Rights, and in 1997 made an admission of discrimination in its own study of USDA operations. Finalized under Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman, the settlement was based on USDA’s 1997 civil rights study. . .[/quote]
rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2004 … ds-up.html

Is it any surprise that. . .

[quote]
President Bush’s job-approval rating among African Americans has dropped to 2 percent
, according to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. . .[/quote]
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00885.html

[Chris]

@Chewycorns

[quote=“Chris”]Racism in the Democratic Party is pre-1965…before I was even born. Ancient history. Everyone knows that; nobody denies it.

Oh really?

Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown” in January 1984 during a conversation with Washington Post. He never apologized for it.

Sharpton is well known for the “Diamond Merchants” comment about Jews which eventually incited a rock-throwing demonstration and precipitated the stabbing death of a young Jewish man with his assailants shouting “Kill the Jew!” Sharpton never apologized.

Some other comments:

“I’m not going to use the federal government’s authority deliberately to circumvent the natural inclination of people to live in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods. . . . I have nothing against a community that’s made up of people who are Polish or Czechoslovakian or French-Canadian or blacks who are trying to maintain the ethnic purity of their neighborhoods.”

–Jimmy Carter, 1976
President, 1977-81
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, 2002

“Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you’d find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they’d just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.”

–Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993
Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984

“I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment. . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation.”

–Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004
Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

“You cannot go into a Dunkin’ Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

“My
state was a slave state. My state is a border state. My state has the
eighth largest black population in the country. My state is anything
[but] a Northeastern liberal state.”

“I mean, you got
the first mainstream African American [Barack Obama] who is articulate
and bright and clean and a nice looking guy.”

“There’s
less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There
is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in
Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what
you’re dealing with.”

Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., (D., Del.), 2006-07
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 1987-95
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations
Candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008[/quote]

The difference is that among Democrats, such incidents are few and far between. It’s far more endemic and active (e.g. creating ads preying on racist fears or actively seeking to deny minorities the opportunity to vote) within the GOP. In most of the cases above, the people in question have apologized. Byrd renounced his KKK past long ago and is now one of the foremost constitutionalists in the Senate. Some (like Al Sharpton) I don’t care for anyway.

I don’t believe that most Republican voters are racists. But I am convinced that most racist voters in the US are Republicans.

[Dr_McCoy]

Holding up the banner.
Republican Lawmaker wants Confederate flag specialty plate in Fla.

The extra $25 motorists would pay for the tag would go to educational programs run by Sons of Confederate Veterans, graveyard maintenance and museum exhibits.

[Chewycorns]

@Chris

But I am convinced that most racist voters in the US are Republicans.

In that case, I think you need to be sent to a re-education camp.

@Human Events

Sadly, Democrats have managed to trick a lot of black Americans into believing that the GOP is a racist party. But, in truth, the Democratic Party was, is, and will likely continue to be the home of far more racists than the GOP. Let me explain why I say that.

To begin with, the Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery activists, in contrast to the pro-slavery Democratic Party. It was Abe Lincoln, a Republican President, who led the North to victory in the Civil War and freed the slaves while the Democrats did everything in their power to keep black Americans down.

Fast forward to 1898 in Wilmington, N.C., where Democrats murdered black Republicans so they could stage, “the nation’s only recorded coup d’etat.” Then, in 1922, Democrats in the Senate filibustered a Republican attempt to make lynching a federal crime. A little later on, FDR nominated former Klansman Hugo Black to the Supreme Court. Contrast that to Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, who actually “sent troops” to ensure that schools in Little Rock, Ark., were desegregated and ordered the “complete desegregation of the Armed Forces.” Noticing any trends? Continued

But, that was such a long time ago, right? Things really changed in the '60s, didn’t they? Yes, Americans – particularly black Americans – really owe Democratic President Lyndon Johnson a debt of gratitude for destroying American families and causing the number of illegitimate births to skyrocket – by pushing entitlement programs that made it much easier to have children out of wedlock.

Remember George “segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever” Wallace standing in the door of an Alabama schoolhouse to keep black children from being able to go to school with whites? George Wallace was a Democrat. Remember Bull Connor turning water hoses and dogs on civil rights protestors? Bull Connor was a Democrat.

But, what about the revolutionary Civil Rights Act of 1964? That’s where the Democrats showed their mettle and Republicans were proven to be racists. Right? Wrong. 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats. Furthermore, a few years later, it was Republican Richard Nixon who first put teeth behind affirmative action.

But, what about today? You’d think that with Democrats receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote in some cases, that there would be few, if any, prominent black Republicans while black Americans would be amongst the biggest power players in the Democratic Party. However, the opposite has often turned out to be true. Once you look past the gerrymandered districts that have to remain in place because so many liberal whites simply won’t vote for black candidates (There are only five black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts), you’ll see that the Republican Party has surpassed the Democrats in many areas.

Who’s the only black American currently on the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas. The first black Secretary of State? Colin Powell. The first black woman ever to be a Secretary of State? Condi Rice.

Who’s one of the fill-ins for the most popular conservative radio host on earth, Rush Limbaugh? Walter Williams. The most desired 2008 nominee as selected by the right side of the blogosphere in 2006? Condi Rice. Who did those same bloggers select as the most desired nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Connor when she retired? Janice Rogers Brown tied for first place.

Meanwhile, what do we see from Democrats? We see Oreo cookies being thrown at Maryland’s black U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele and black Republicans being called “Uncle Toms” and compared to “Aunt Jemima.”

Moreover, let’s take a look at a couple of studies that actually set out to compare how racist Republicans and Democrats actually are. First off, a professor from Yale looked at voting patterns and she found that:

“…(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black. …In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black.”

It would have been interesting for them to poll black Republicans and Democrats as well, for comparison’s sake, but however you slice it, there are a lot more white Democrats than white Republicans willing to defect to the other side rather than vote for a black candidate.

Then there is another study, this time from a professor at Stanford – of how much government largesse Democrats and Republicans believe people deserved to be given after Katrina – and, surprise, surprise: Democrats behaved in a racist fashion while Republicans didn’t:

“But for Democrats, race mattered – and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority…” Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. “However, their position is ‘principled’ in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues.”

Here’s the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP’s belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they’ll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won’t. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett’s condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans.

This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that’s friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.

That’s why if you’re a black American who thinks the GOP better represents your views than the Democratic Party, then it’s time to join the Republican Party. Don’t let the Democrats lie to you and tell you that the GOP is full of racists, especially when there are so many distinguished black Americans out there who can tell you otherwise. Look to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann – and you’ll see that the GOP judges people not “by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

humanevents.com/article.php?id=15893

[urodacus]

how come Mr Sam Ple gets a personalised number plate? I want one too.

[Dr_McCoy]

@urodacus

how come Mr Sam Ple gets a personalised number plate? I want one too.

You just have to give 25USD to a white supremacist organization.