Sparticus:
Aas for the predatory lending thing, I’m against unfair usury. I simply disagree with that stance because I don’t beleive that the bankruptcy of the lendee is the point where you stop predatory lending.
And, as I said, I respected your effort. It’s useful and enlightening and gives us positive information with which to make judgements. It however, does not support an agenda of pandering to racism by Republicans.
The Reagan piece is germaine because it is (more) evidence of an ongoing pattern of Republican racial pandering in the South.
You don’t think that’s what Reagan was up to? I defy you to give me a non-racist reason for Reagan to choose Philadelphia, Mississippi (a tiny town whose only claim to fame was as the site of the most brutal murder in Civil Rights history) as the location for a speech on states’ rights.
You just keep sticking your fingers in your ears and singing “la la la la, I can’t hear youuuuuuu…”
I will give you an example that my mom and stepdad used about 2 hours ago. My stepdad wondered about why interracial dating wasn’t a big issue in the news, and my mom wondered why white girls weren’t afraid of dating black men.
Of course they wouldn’t consider themselves or Republicans racist either. Because racism is bad.
spoke-, if you’re talking about Reagan, you’re missing the mark.
We’re talking about current members of Congress, and proof that the current members of Congress are racist. If I called you a racist on the basis of what your dad said 30 years ago, I’d be wrong. And the Democrats are doing that very thing to the Republicans right now.
I want proof that this “Southern Strategy” exists RIGHT NOW, and how many of the current Republican Congressmen are racist. You obviously believe they are, so PROVE IT.
[sub]God am I getting tired of typing that. Just prove your assertion, for Pete’s sake, if you can.[/sub]
Spoke:
No it’s not. It’s an opinion piece. Not only that it’s one stupid enough to try and paint Barry Goldwater as a racist panderer.
It’s germaine to the debate because it shows a Democrat trying to dish dirt on Republicans to save the black vote.
Al Gore’s dad is a racist from the time cited in that article. According to your logic this demonstrates a pattern of racism among democrats.
You’re logic is worthless.
I hear you loud and clear. I’m asking you to demonstrate that the Republican party today is bigoted.
You’re citing events of 30-40 years ago.
That’s just stupid.
Current Republican strategy? Why are you all acting like the present situation just fell from the sky intact, wiping out anything that happened before 2000? If you accept that the southern strategy existed in the era of Nixon, when did it go away? Clearly it was still being used by Atwater, when he managed Reagans campaign, coining “welfare queens” and kicking off the campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. Well, Lee Atwater also ran the campaign for George H. W. Bush, of the Willie Horton ad.
Lee Atwater also managed the campaign for Presidency of the College Republicans in the early 70’s of a young Karl Rove. Rove introduced Atwater to Bush the elder in 1973. Rove also helped G.H.W. Bush run for president in 1980.
These people didn’t just sprout up anew. There is a great consistency in power politics. Tell me what has changed?
And Scylla, come on, “Huckleberry?” If you are failing and having to resort to name calling, surely you can do better than that. I mean, that is really weak, especially for a Republican. Be clever, call me a card-carrying-something-or-other, or welfare-something-or-other, or… I don’t know. Sheesh. Pathetic.
Hey Scylla, what do you see here? Let me guess, just a bunch of dots, right?
And I see you’ve reverted to your strawman of “larger generalizations,” as opposed to the rather less than sweeping claim (per my restatement of the actual arguments) “that some Republican politicians are bigots, that too many Republican campaigns have been tailored to capture the votes of bigots, and that the leaders of the Republican party intentionally adopted a strategy to gain a national majority by appealing to bigoted white voters in the South.” Ah well, for a moment I thought there was a chance we might be able to get somewhere. My mistake.
Oh yeah, and the ahistorical crap is really starting to bug me, too.
Goldwater integrated the armed services? Boy, that’ll be news to (Democrat) Harry Truman.
And if you plan to stand up for the honor of Goldwater, you need to ask yourself why he implemented “Operation Dixie” as part of his Presidential campaign strategy, including a vocal opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, Goldwater pioneered the so-called “Southern Strategy” which later Republicans emulated.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
**Hey Scylla, what do you see here? Let me guess, just a bunch of dots, right?
What is that, a scattergram? What does the y axis signify?
Of course. I said so in my OP.
I would think that 1 would be too many. Why signify Republicans? We’re not the Democratic campaigns of the 50s and 60s also guilty in some instances?
Why then says “Republican.” Would it not be more accurate to say that during that period too many campaigns revolved around racist issues?
Yes, they did. They did it to get elected. Bigots have votes too. I have never heard a politician identify a group and say “we don’t want your votes.”
Whether we wish to consider this egregious, or defend it, it’s 30 years old and not germaine to campaigns being run in the hear and now.
The question is whether or not there is an agenda of racist pandering in the Republican party presently. That’s why I very specifically made it clear that I was looking at the present tense.
If we want to talk about ancient history we can go back to the formation of Republicanism to fight those slaveholding Democrats. That doesn’t say much about today’s Democratic party.
We’re discussing the present situation. Not the past.
Why is this not clear?
Lucky for you I’m not keeping count.
Exhibit A: Trent Lott (He who, to connect the dots, urged Reagan to give his states’ rights speech in Philadelphia, MS.)
Spoke:
I’ll be happy to discuss Goldwater and Truman in another thread, rather than hijack this one.
This is not a history discussion.
Exhibit B: Bush’s speech at Bob Jones U., and his deference to “states’ rights” on the Confederate flag issue.
I see it as an eminently simple question: why does one so readily attract – and keep – such unsavory friends? Regardless of political affiliation, this is a litmus test worth passing.
Many conservatives and leaders of the religious right are among those who insist that American Muslims such as myself have an obligation to pre-emptively repudiate my fanatical, hate-preaching co-religionists – people with whom I have never, nor would have ever, associated.
Alternately, I therefore have every right to insist that my accusers on the right not continue to give aid and comfort to – nor receive it from – those who advocate white supremacy.
The Republican Party is not racist. Southerners per se are not racist. But insofar as nationally elected Republican politicians have shown a continued tendency to more readily associate with and pander to Southern white supremacist groups than have their Democratic counterparts, the Republican Party does indeed have a serious problem with the company it keeps.
This is just stupid. Incredibly stupid.
Do you understand that “RIGHT NOW” disqualifies events of 20 years ago?
Jesus Christ.
Liberals have spoken there too, and the Confederate flag is a “State Issue” from my understanding.
And, assuming that Bush is a bigot, you are still not answering the question I’ve asked.
I’m beginning to wonder if you are rather thick, or not.
I think I made that clear in my OP and in the last 30 or so posts.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
I’m beginning to wonder if you remember what forum you posted this in.
Ah, so you want analysis, but devoid of examples.
And then when we give a more generalized analysis of the problem, you want more specific proof.
And when we offer specific examples as proof, you want a more general analysis.
And then when we offer a general analysis you want more specific proof…
Etc.
Spoke:
I can see why you’re confused. Clearly I didn’t explain what I was asking for. I must not have been explicit.
I’ll say it for you again:
What I’m asking for is rational proof for the assertion that the current Republican leadership and elected representatives are either generally bigoted disproportionate to the Democrats or that they have been pursuing an agenda of pandering to racism in the recent elections.
But Trent Lott said his bit within the last two weeks. He resigned his position only a few days ago. Oh, you mean, who is bigoted RIGHT NOW! Well, that will be a bit more difficult to demonstrate, won’t it.
