On democrats being racist in South Carolina it is easy to see if you look. For example Strom Thurmond retired, but both people trying to take his place ran on “continuing the legacy of Strom Thurmond”. The democratic candidate accused his opponent of opposing the death penalty and tried to insinuate that his opponent was friends with liberals and might even possibly not hate gay people.
'Luce:
I’m not just looking for statements, I’m looking for accusations, and I’m who likes and dislikes the person in question.
If the rabid fundamentalists and Southern heritage types hate you, you’re probably not a bigot. I’m also looking at voting records.
There’s a fantastic site for getting a feel as to how politicians stand on all kinds of issues here:
http://issues2002.org/Senate/Mary_Landrieu.htm
So seeing as you’re just standing there being bitchy and complaining and criticizing instead of doing any work, why not just light up a Lucky, have a coke and a smile, and shut the fuck up?
Sterra:
Ok, I’ll be happy to throw in South Carolina provided you want to do the whole State, The Senators and the Gov, and any issues that were brought up in the recent elections. But you gotta do the whole state.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by minty green *
**I read your questions, Bob, and determined that I had already answered most of them, expressly or implicitly, in my initial response to your blog-sourced data. As you may recall, I gave you three points out of seven attempts, and disallowed the four misses because they didn’t meet your own stated criteria: [ul][li]examples of anti-black racism (Clinton and Cuomo failed on this count, since the evidence didn’t remotely demonstrate racist motive)[]high-profile Democrats (Bill McKinney? Please)within the last 20 years (Gephardt failed here because it was 1976, even apart from the fact that the alleged evidence sucked ass)[/ul]That about sum it up? **[/li][/QUOTE]
Nope. BTW, keep referring to it as blog-sourced data. It continues to show your bias and is a classic logical fallacy. Anyway, here’s what I asked:
**No, I don’t think you answered these, explicitly or implicitly. Indulge me on the Gephardt one, which falls outside the 20-year window (Christ, there have been Nixon examples trotted out in this thread).
Florida
- Bob Graham, Democrat. Defended the hell out of BJU, got honorary degree, got his shit all torn up for this stance. Said this about a potential Congressional censure of BJU "“This resolution is nothing more than partisan political grandstanding,” Graham responded. “Even though I disagree with some of the policies and views expressed by BJU, religious freedom in America allows for such views to be held. Legislative condemnation could have a very chilling effect on religious liberties.” Strongly Defended Lott, some Florida Democrats don’t like him and call him a Bush patsy, and a “classic Southern Democrat,” suggesting he’s one in name only (but these guys seem pretty extreme,) is seriously considering 2004 Presidential bid, called “misguided.”
My opinion - I’m not calling him a bigot or a pander. In fact he seems to be doing a lot of things some Republicans are accused of doing. If you want to make a case for a Southern strategy, and believe it exists, you’d have to include this guy though.
- Bill Nelson, Democrat - Gave a really impassioned speech against hate, homophobia and racial bigotry, another against anti-semitism,
My opinion - I read that speech and stopped. Clear message that he was alienating himself from racists.
- Jeb Bush, Republican - Bush’s bros. Made some nasty comments about some lesbians that he thought were private but got picked up, apologized, spoke out against religious bigotry, concerning choice of his welfare chief, a fundamentalist, repealed affirmative action in higher education and government contracting, found a cite that really hates him but doesn’t call him a bigot or suggest he is one
My opinion - Made a stupid comment, a conservative, not a bigot.
It’s interesting that politics in Georgia seem to revolve almost completely around the confederate flag issue.
Both the current Republican and the previous Democrat governor basically won office by keeping their mouth shut on the issue, and letting their opponent blow themselves up by saying the flag is bad. After winning office by saying he had “better things to do” than worry about the flag issue, the last Demcorat went on a crusade against it.
I’m not sure whether to score that as a pro or a con.
Easy enough.
Hollings was also the person who actually put the flag up at the capitol.
Hodges was the one who took down the flag and put it up at a more prominent location. He consulted an interesting organization over the issue as well.
:sigh: As if there were ever a hope of keeping this on topic.
Because the assertion was based on evidence that, at best, fellates donkeys. The accusation was crap. I evaluate that the same way as I would evaluate any accusation of a racially divisive campaign. By examining the evidence.
The Confederate flag is, ipso facto, a symbol of bigotry and hatred. And before you reply with any sentence that contains the word “heritage,” I ask you to take it to another thread 'cause I damn well ain’t doing that argument all over again here.
Because the other posters in this thread have provided substantial evidence of bigotry and/or butt kissing of bigots. This so-called “evidence” doesn’t even deserve the distinction of being called evidence.
Because (a) the evidence sucks ass (a common problem with blog-data), (b) there is no indication of what Daschle said, if anything at all was said, © there is no indication whatsoever that Daschle knew the organization was racist, quite unlike the CCC and BJU. Other than that, the heck with it. I’m not addressing that any further. I already said everything that needed to be said. If you’re incapable of evaluating the evidenciary strength of an accusation, that’s your own damn problem. And if you’re willing to ignore your own express criteria for consideration as a purported example of Democratic bigotry, that too is your problem.
No, the evidence should be evaluated. In this case, after the evidence has been evaluated, it should be recycled as toilet paper, because the evidence is crap. No points for you, Bob. No shame either, obviously.
So would it go like this?
S. Carolina
-
Ernest Hollings, Democrat, scumbag racist
-
Strom Thurmond, Republican, former segregationist who denounced both it and racism but some people don’t think he’s sincere
-
Jim Hodges, Democrat, Confederate flag panderer
Oh and Hodges is a friend of the dreaded triple C and hence a likely racist scumbag
How’s that?
BTW:
As I’m reading more about this confederate flag issue, I find that I was in error in my earlier statements in this thread.
While back in the days of the Dukes of Hazard it might not have been such an issue, that has apparently changed. It now seems extremely polarized with the race haters being big proponents of the flag, and sensitive minorities understandably taking extreme umbrage about this sentiment.
Based on that, it is my opinion that Joe Good ole boy, who takes Southern Pride in himself and his heritage in a good nonracist way had better put away that flag. Whatever positive qualities that it may have had for him (and I believe he could have had some) should now be eclipsed by the blanket of hate that surrounds the issue. So if he is a good ole boy in the best Southern tradittion he needs to express the legendary southern politeness and consideration and put the fucking thing away.
'nuff said, and apologies to Pantom.
Goddamn this flag thing sucks.
Here’s an interesting quote I found
“The difference between democrats and republicans is the difference between Al Sharpton and Pat Buchanan; Maxine Waters and Bob Barr; Tom Daschle and Trent Lott; Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson; Minister Farrakhan and Jerry Falwell.”
Scylla: Apology accepted.
Now all I need to do is get you to treat Elvis L1ves with a bit more civility, and my work will be done.
Damn. Three pages during Christmas and a major snowstorm up here in the Northeast? Don’t any of you guys take time out to at least shovel your driveways? Sheesh.
Took me an hour to get through this thing. And I still haven’t had my last cup of tea before bed because of it.
**Right. This was off topic. Sorry for your having to endure such a hardship.
**Right again. Your impartial evaulation. Now I get it. The fact that Cuomo’s camp initially denied the fact that he stated this is probably attributable to his shame over some other unrelated reason. And McCall was probably smoking crack. Clearly, only your assessment is objective.
**And I ask you to actually read what I posted. When, regarding the Confederate flag campaign, I state something along the lines of…
**…most people would not see this as a prompt to chide me for the racist propaganda I’m surely about to spout.
**Wow, you actually followed my facetious advice and continue to rail against what were–by your own admission–simple and unambiguous facts. Thanks for confirming my suspicision that you are more interested in scoring “points” than in honest debate. BTW, I was referring to the multiple instances where Dem posters described a sinister but subtle Republican strategy that they were certain existed, though they didn’t keep notes on it. Those assessments, of course, passed the smell test for you.
**Then why did he (I’m sure you meant Gephardt) denounce the organization? Why didn’t he do his homework? Why do you assume his motives were noble when you do not provide that benefit of the doubt to any Republican, including those who spoke at BJU?
**Once would be fine.
**Oh, bullshit. I’ve tried to keep this civil, and I’ve asked nothing unreasonable. Does this pass for debate where you come from? If you express enough faux moral outrage and glib insults, you needn’t actually debate in good faith?
**Right. That was my criteria. Tell you what. Pretend this isn’t a game show and ignore the fucking criteria. Try addressing the specific points just the same.
**And you have flat out not answered the question I asked you. Don’t bother trying again.
Oh, Christ. I’m shameless, eh? Have you read more than every other word of what I’ve posted? Are you insinuating that I offered those facts to support my belief that a racist Democrat strategy exists? Do you understand I’m not trying to score points, I’m trying to understand another position? And can you engage in honest intellectual debate without insulting someone who disagrees with you? This is classic.
Mississippi
- Trent Lott, Republican, undisputed winner of “least credible series of duress motivated apologies”
My opinion - This would probably be the gold standard of what we’re looking for here.
- Thad Cochran, Republican - A profile for courage award judge (which I guess means the Kennedys don’t find him too offensive,) “I’m not going to take a potshot at Senator Lott on this,” said Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) Beat Shawn O’hara. presented a performance for kids entitled “COOTIE SHOTS: THEATRICAL INOCULATIONS AGAINST BIGOTRY FOR KIDS …” accused of racism by really insanely scary site,.
My opinion - surprising thin data draw, but he looks ok, guessing if he wasn’t he’d be all over the news for being from the same state as Lott.
- Ronnie Musgrove, Democrat, signed anti hate crimes bill, apparently accidently declare “spirit of America day” in Mississippi which has sponsored by white supremacist Richard Barrett with an agenda of crazy shit (this appears to be a total screw up of embarassing proportion but not a deliberate act of racism or racist pandering.) says has an “eerie feeling” that the Confederate flag might be standing for race hatred, speaks out against “prejudice, hatred, and bigotry”
My opinion - Perhaps not the brightest bulb, but racist? Nyahhh.
Interesting? Mildly. Germane to the OP? Not at all.
I almost regreted my post(the third in the thread). I only came back to see if I needed to apologize.
I don’t.
If somebody wants to do Alabama, they can. I’m done.
My general conclusion
After taking a look at a sample of of current deep South politicians, I see no major trend suggesting that Republicans are the predominant leaders in pandering to bigotry or being bigots themselves.
In Georgia the flag shit is just nuts, and I’m not sure what to make of it partywise, it just looks like a mess.
The Democrats seem to have the most outspoken civil rights proponents, but they also seem to have a proportion of panderers and racists similar to the Republicans.
We have our share of foot and mouth disease on both sides with Ronnie Musgrove winning the prize for the Democrats, with Jeb Bush doing a Yeoman’s job in a close second (but how could you beat accidently declaring what amounts to white supremacy day?)
We have some Democrats acting like Republicans in drag, a lot of speaking out against intolerance on both sides, etc etc.
It looks to me like your chances of having a panderer or a racist for a senator or a governor are primarily dependant on what State you reside in not what party he/she belongs to. Both parties seem to have racists who are somewhat accepted.
Based on my attempt at an impartial study (and it is by no means a complete study, the sample is small and I only did quick thumbnail glances at the people in question,) it appears to me that people who say that the Republicans are the party of the panders and the racists compared to the Democrats are totally full of shit. It looks damn proportionate on both sides.
Neither side gets to hold their head up.
I’ve taken the time and effort to research a representative sample, and made every attempt to be fair and impartial, though I have no illusions about completeness.
If somebody wishes to propose an alternate interpretation I will expect the same as I have given in this effort.
Samclem:
agreed.
I agree that both parties have their fair share of racists. The main difference in the parties is wether the racists or the non racists have power. On the Republican side you have Trent Lott, but on the Democratic side you have Jessie Jackson. People laughed at the idea that McCain(whose only pandering to racists he later recanted) could win the Republican primaries, but Bush went to Bob Jones* and is now the president. Clinton, on the other hand, has been described as the first black president.
- Guilt by association deals with the fact that saying “You know who else was a vegetarian?” is not a valid tatic. Guilt by associating with certain groups (for example Hodges and the CCC) is still guilt.
This just in! Hold the presses!
After due consideration (his own), and application of rigorous investigative methods (his own), subjected to entirely objective standards (his own), Scylla has reached the conclusion that he was right.
Well, that certainly settles that.