So you have one example. Out of 51 Senators. That’s right around 2%.
For this to be a real issue, you might want to get that percentage a little higher.
But hey, you can assert whatever you want to. After all, it’s the perception rather than the reality that drives this discussion, right?
“I have here, in my hand, a list of 51 senators who use racism to get elected, but I’m not gonna show you a damn thing”. Joe McCarthy would be proud of you guys.
Specific examples as proof of what, though? Robert Byrd’s very existence does not prove that the Democrats are a racist party.
That there are examples of Republican pandering to racism is not the same as saying that there is a widespread, explicit (if not publicly stated) foundation in the Republican platform that has this as a goal.
If Lott is conceded as an example of pandering to racists, can you take that fact and explain why that is proof of a widespread Republican strategy?
If we’re being thick, please tie it all together for us. I’m just not seeing it.
** Scylla **
Based on exhibits presented, would you be willing to concede that the Republican party devised a “Southern strategy” post-1960s that lasted until at least Reagan?
Now, a lot of the faces within the party are still around. What do you think happened to the strategy? Somewhere along the line we can only assume this strategy was watered down. Bush 43 tried to be expressly inclusive. So, let us assume he didn’t find it moral or expedient to follow it. But, a lot of the faces are still around. What is there to prevent some of them from continuing a watered down version of it, especially for State elections? Inertia and politics, simple.
Also, if I argue that the Dems did not have such a strategy and in fact the central leadership thought it moral or expedient to do the exact opposite, i.e., to woo blacks and minorities (which explains why 90% blacks vote Democratic?), then would that point to the conclusion that more Republicans in the existing political system pander or are more liable to pander to a divisive strategy than Democrats?
If we view this as a simple political game, it posits the existence of two parties prying on opposite forces, and also explains why Dems may feel threatened and hence would want to re-inforce their vote block through rhetorical racism allegations against the Republicans.
This is only a model based on scattered facts, I agree.
No. Trent Lott counts. That’s one.
I think one of the problems with this arguement is it seems a little silly. It is like asking to prove the moon landing was not a hoax. You bring out the proof, but you don’t expect it to convince people that would believe that the moon landing is a hoax. Take for example the CCC. They aren’t bigoted because they expose the “truth” of Martin Luther King, are supporting Trent Lott, are for the confederate flag, and like to call themselves “The True Voice of the American Right”. Those are just state’s rights issues.
Really I think that Trent Lott and the other Republican’s actions regarding him should be enough. Up until he resigned Lott was the majority leader. He didn’t get to that majority leader position by being against segregation and for civil rights. Both his words and his voting record show the opposite. Other than being the biggest racist in the party does Lott have any other reason to be majority leader?
I suppose I am thick then.
Two years ago isn’t recent enough for you?
How about two weeks ago?
And specific examples don’t constitute “rational proof?” Instead, they are “anecdotal evidence?” What are you looking for? A memo, with the fingerprints of every Southern Republican on it?
Look, speaking at Bob Jones U. during a national campaign in and of itself sends a signal. This is a campus that forbade interracial dating, you will recall. (And please, back up your statement that liberals speak there. Name a liberal who made a campaign stop at Bob Jones. I sure don’t remember Gore speaking there.)
Invoking “states’ rights” sends a signal. “States rights!” was the traditional cry of segregationists. Southerners know this. Don’t you?
I really don’t understand what you’re looking for. A scientific study? Hasn’t been done, to my knowledge. Historical analysis? We’ve given you that. Specific examples? We’ve given you that.
Exhibit C: 2002 Georgia gubernatorial campaign.
Exhibit D: South Carolina gubernatorial campaign.
Exhibit E: (Then Rep., now Sen.) Saxby Chambliss’s statement about stopping Muslims at the border of Lowndes County, and his subsequent endorsement by the CCC.
Exhibit F: Bob Barr’s speech to the CCC, and the Republican blockage of a vote to censure the CCC for its racist rhetoric. (Oops. That was four years ago. Ancient history.)
If there are more examples of Republicans who explicitly do NOT embrace these types of actions, does that prove the opposite of what you contend? Again, tie these all together to show a strategy embedded in the Republican platform. You haven’t yet.
Litost:
I think if you go back fifty years you will find racist pandering in both parties. At points in time the Democrats were more racist than the Republicans and vice-versa.
I am not willing to concede that their are elected Republican racists or racist panderers simply on the grounds that there were in the past and some might still be around.
People reform. Strom Thurmond was a pretty damn serious segregationists who renounced his earlier beliefs. If he were still in the senate I don’t think he could be categorized fairly as a racist based on a beleif he very publically no longer holds.
If their are racists and racist panderers, currently holding elected office in the Senate (I use the senate because it represents the full U.S. geography and gives us a known sample size, but I’m happy with any systematic method equally as representative and defined,) then I say let’s identify them.
If there’s an agenda of racist pandering it should show in the recent campaigns. Let’s identify it.
Once we’ve identified it let’s search the Democratic side according to the same criteria and see if it is disproportionately against the Republicans.
If it is, then one could safely say without prejudice that Republican party was bigoted and have substantial comparative evidence to back it up.
It seems to me that if one were to suggest that there was a trend of bigotry or racist pandering in the Republican party, it would be incumbent on one to have positively and rigorously identified the trend before they make the accusation. You could do it other ways than with the Senate or as I have described, but without such a study or it’s equivalent than the accusation is frivolous, and likely motivated to protect the black vote.
It seems to me that could just as equally mean that the Democratic party is pandering to black issues to get the vote, couldn’t it? That 90% of blacks have been voting Democratic may be a fact, but we have to careful not to make an assumption from that fact that doesn’t directly follow.
Was there ever Democratic censure of Robert Byrd, a former KKK member? If not, does that represent to you an ongoing and widespread racist element in the party?
**This was from Byrd in 2001, in case you’re interested.
Bob Barr’s old district is now represented by Republican Phil Gingrey. While he was still in the Georgia General Assembly, Gingrey sponsored a resolution recognizing April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. Some of the language of that resolution…
Nah. No coded messages there…
Gingrey is the current representative of Barr’s old district.
Remind me again where a month that memorializes something that profoundly affected the United States as a whole is offensive?
It’s no more offensive than Black History Month.
Note the part that says “historic state flags”. Is that flag not historic? Should we ban even the showing of that flag, even at re-enactments of battles?
Whether you agree with what they were fighting for (and I don’t, slavery was an abomination), that statement doesn’t misrepresent the facts in any way.
So, where, is it demonstarted that he is anything but a history buff? Where’s the obvious racism that he must have?
Link it to some other things, like what happened to Lott, and maybe I’ll buy it. But not yet.
Spoke:
I have the reference at home. I’ll post it later. I promise. I just want to be clear. If you speak at Bob Jones University, you are a racist? You support racism? What exactly does speaking at Bob Jones University prove about the person who speaks?
States don’t have rights, or you’re not supposed to mention it?
“States rights” is a code for racism? Is that what you say at the Klavern to get in? I spent 4 years in Louisiana in College. Southerners know no such thing, and you do not speak for them.
I don’t blame myself for the density of lead. Similarly I don’t consider your lack of understanding to be my fault.
My point exactly, without the rigorous substantiation such a serious charge warrants, making it is fraudulent and despicable.
Exhibit D: South Carolina gubernatorial campaign.
[/quote]
I see. So you would prefer a methodology that analyzes gubernatorial campaigns. Naming two campaigns says nothing. If you wish to prove your case do an analysis of the most recent 50 gubernatorial campaigns and demonstrate a bias for racist pandering among Republicans.
What does this statement tell us about the Republican party in general? Was he making a policy statement on behalf of all Republicans? In what way would you generalize this individual statement to Republicans in general?
I don’t know if Jim Hodges counts (I don’t know much about him), but here’s a Democrat at least, mentioned in this cite.
**
I am from Georgia. I’m giving you the goods on Georgia’s Republican panderers. So far, I’ve covered the current governor, a current Senator, and a current representative, as well as recent representative Bob Barr. A pattern emerges.
(I’ll leave it to other posters whether they want to dig around for the goods on their own states’ politicians.)
Spoke:
Since you appear to want to have a different debate than the one I’ve started here, why not take the hijack elsewhere.
I have stated in my Op that there are individual cases of racism or pandering in the Republican party. That is not for debate.
Citing these instances that we all agree exist does nothing.
At any rate, I’m not going to bother with you any further if you insist on continuing to ignore my repeated specific requests.
What pattern is that? That everybody in Georgia is a racist?
Please respond to my question regarding Byrd, spoke-. Does his very existence lead you to the same conclusion regarding the Democrats?
Let me ask this question again. Look on it as a hypothetical, if you’d like, but try answering it.
If for every Lott you can point to, I could point to 2 (or 5 or 10) Republicans who do not embrace the sort of pandering you describe, would that lead you to conclude the opposite of what you’re presently asserting? IOW, if individual instances of racism add up to something, what do more numerous examples of “non-racism” add up to? At what point would you concede that there is no racist strategy embedded in the Republican platform?
“What picture? You keep showing me dots.”
minty, I’m interested in your response to the “hypothetical” question I posed.
Airman Doors, if you can’t read between the lines of that resolution, I can’t help you.
History buff, indeed.