Scylla: Right, but now it’s you who is making a positive assertion (that Democrats have used a similar strategy). Get to work! Otherwise, my assertion is going to be that no Democrats do it.
I don’t get it, Scylla. If the GOP isn’t lenient with racism, why did they, individually and as a body, allow Trent Lott to serve as a representative of their party, much less a leadership role, for over 13 years in the Senate? What were they waiting for, him joining the Nation of Islam and bringing in the black vote? How do you explain that?
Both parties make apologies for their own, of course, but I can’t think of a Democrat offhand beyond maybe Byrd who fits the racist profile. Bob Herbert in the NYT pointed out a pretty good GOP example today, though, Allen in Virginia.
Hmm. I think I’ll answer my own above question.
Quick hypothetical situation. I get elected to the U.S. Senate today. Forget how for the moment. I’m way too liberal for my own good, and I’d go in there with an attitude somewhere between Mr. Smith and Rambo.
Let’s say the first insane thing I would do is call for at least censure and hopefully the resignations of quite a few fellow senators. Bob Jones panderers, CCC associates, Jefferson Davis wannabes like Lott at the top of the list. Second, I’d also call for a bill denouncing racism, segregation, etc in the strongest terms possible and demand everyone in both parties sign off on it or suffer the consequences.
Exactly how many friends do you think I would make? Not a damn lot.
That’s why a little good ol’ boyism has been tolerated in the GOP for so long. In the past, the political price for calling someone out for such has been too high. It was way easier to keep quiet. That’s why Daschle shrugged Lott’s comment off - he thought he could just turn it into a bill later. That’s why Hillary Clinton buried the hatchet with all the senators that went gunning after her husband - otherwise, she’d get nowhere. It’s why Ashcroft survived the nomination process. It’s also why the GOP had to think before condemning Lott.
That’s how it was safe for Southern politicans to wink at the folks who regard George W. Bush as a dangerous liberal. They assume no one will call them on it, and if someone does, they can just shrug it off. Lott was the beginning of the end, I think, but I doubt such behavior will stop significantly until his generation is too old to hold office. The kids of baby boomers have a better chance of not growing up being told they were better than those other people.
I must say, this has been a most wonderfully informative thread. On the one hand, we have wonderful cites and books that I’ve been spending hours pouring over, becoming reacquainted with the elements of the bigot-friendly Republican agenda from a multitude of posters; and on the other hand, there’s Scylla and his immature rhetorical tricks.
That’s informative, too.
I wonder though, Scylla, if you admit that the Republican party was bigoted 20 years ago, and that the Southern Strategy existed, logically you must be able to answer the following:
[ol][li]When did the Republican leadership stop being bigtoed?[/ol]Please provide specifics and generalities to match my secret ratio, and then guess the number I’m thinking of.[/li]
Nope.
Aide: But you can’t accuse him of being a pig f**k*r!!
LBJ: I know that! But let’s make him deny it!
An old political trick: accuse the other side of doing something, so that if you make them deny it, you get two headlines: the first making the accusation, and the second denying it. That you know it to be false from the beginning means nothing, of course.
Despite the fact that he was a Democrat, we will give out a few LBJ Pig Poker Memorial Awards to the Republicans. If you do a search on the phrase “voter fraud” on google, what you find is that conservatives were very much on the alert for this. Why? Well, it’s a good tactic to use against the Democrats. If they aggressively recruit new voters in minority districts, then you can come back and say that there was fraud in them there ballots.
So, on to the headlines:
1 - Alleged voter fraud by Mexican-Americans pointed out in Texas, accusation by Republicans:
http://www.themonitor.com/NewsPub/News/Stories/2002/10/22/10353408291.shtml
2 - Alleged voter fraud in South Dakota in the registration of Indians, accusation by Republicans:
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2002/10/21/news/opinion/opin03.txt
3 - Intimidation of voters in a supposed attempt to prevent fraud, done by Republicans in a black district, in Arkansas:
http://www.pbcommercial.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2002/October/22-2390-NEWS1.TXT
4 - A special bonus: intimidating flyers in a gubernatorial race in Maryland, put out in black districts only, distributed anomynously. Of course:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/4444051.htm
The pattern I found actually amazed me in its nationwide scope and in the variety of minority groups targetted. Basically, the strategy was to go after the most despised minority in the state in question, whichever one that might be, and actively discourage that minority from voting through intimidation and accusations of fraud. Somewhat similar to the infamous voter purge in Florida that targetted black citizens in the 2000 Presidential election. Apparently, the Republicans liked that vicious little tactic so much that they decided to make it national.
It isn’t even a Southern strategy anymore. More like a national one of attempting to disenfranchise as many minorities in as many places as possible. Truly disgusting.
Oh, and just to get one in on the Southern strategy, there’s this:
Inflammatory remarks by state senator Arthur Ravenel made national headlines in Jan. 2000 when he defended the flying of the Southern Cross, referring to the NAACP as the “the National Association of Retarded People.” He then apologized to “retarded people” for associating them with the NAACP. At the time of the the February Republican presidential primary, party differences on the issue were thrown in sharp relief: the Republican contenders declined to take a stand except to say that the issue was a state matter; the Democrats were outspokenly against the flag remaining.
Needless to say, Ravenel is a Republican.
From this site:
**It’s not all “anti-black,” but it’s instructive nonetheless:
Senator Byrd, current Senator from WV: Former Klan member, uttered his infamous “nigger” statements last March (see prior post), and with a long history of opposing civil rights. Elected President Pro Tempore and made Chairman of the Appropriations Committee in 2001 (by the Democrats, obviously).
Senator Hollings, current Senator from South Carolina: Referred to the Rainbow PUSH Coalition as the “Blackbow Coalition.” Called former Senator Howard Metzenbaum of Ohio “the Senator from B’nai B’rith.” Hollings’ comments regarding the African Delegation to the 1993 Geneva GATT conference, “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.” Former Governor of South Carolina who proudly raised the confederate flag over the state capitol in the early 1960’s.
Jesse Jackson: Former presidential candidate, speaker at 2000 Democratic Convention. Infamous “Hymietown” comment.
Representative Dick Gephardt, MO: Although he later denounced the organization, spoke in the early 80’s before the “Metro South Citizen’s Council,” a St. Louis white-rights organization.
Andrew Cuomo, Bill Clinton’s former Housing Secretary and a prominent New York Democrat: During his run for the nomination for Governor, he initially denied that he made a statement warning that the black and Hispanic coalition so evident in New York City’s Democratic mayoral contest “can’t happen” again in the New York gubernatorial race. His campaign manager backed down when a tape recording proved the statement (which was described as “racially divisive” by State Comptroller, Carl McCall, an African American).
Bill Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas: In 1989, Bill Clinton was sued as one of three top Arkansas officials. The action ostensibly sought to make the objects of the suit responsible for the intimidation of black voters in Arkansas as part of a legal action brought under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Billy McKinney, former Democrat State Representative of Georgia: During his daughter’s failed 2002 reelection bid, McKinney among other things, stated that the election hinged on “Jews.” The ADL southeast director, Deborah Lauter, condemned the remarks as “classic anti-semitism.”
I’ll leave out all the Democratic Senators who voted against the Civil Rights Act, since you asked for the past 20 years.
Anyway, I personally do not believe that this in total can be interpreted to indicate a current systematic Democratic strategy of racism. However, it should be interesting to see how those who feel differently about the Republicans can reconcile this.
So, rather than lobbing grenades at Scylla, anyone care to comment? Is it reasonable to assume one of two conclusions?:
-
Democrats are, like the Republicans, an organization that ought to be ashamed for “too often” pandering to racist elements. In this regard, there is no substantial difference between the parties that is supported by objective evidence.
-
If you continue to hold that the Dems are not a racist organization, then perhaps it follows that the same conclusion ought to be applied to the Republicans, since the same sorts of evidence exist.
Or, will someone explain how the two circumstances are by their nature different (hopefully using evidence other than one’s gut feeling of an insidious but implicit racisim that oozes from the pores of most Southern Republicans).
Since I’ve asked this question before without a response, I’m not hopeful anyone will actually pause in the Scylla bashing to actually take a shot.
Byrd: Asshole. Also immediately apologized, but still a complete asshole whose death will brighten my day. Score one for Bob Cos.
Hollings: Bigot. Score two.
Jackson: Ain’t never been nominated or elected to nothin’. General, all-around jerk. But he does get to speak at conventions every once in a while to keep him and his organization off everyone else’s case. I’ll be generous and count it as another one. Score stands at three.
Gephardt: No credit. You have to show that the “MSCC” was known to be a racist organization at the time (1976, according to the only semi-reputable source I found). Bob Jones University was most certainly known as such, dating way back to the 1980s controversy where Reagan tried to give them back the tax breaks they’d lost for being racist assholes. Score still at three.
Cuomo: It is not a racist statement to discuss political strategy in terms of ethnic groups. No credit, score still at three.
Clinton: No proof = no credit.
Bill McKinney: Not a “high profile” Democrat, just a former local official with an insane daughter who, thankfully, lost her re-election bid for Congress. No credit.
Still, three’s a decent start. Keep ‘em coming, Bob, you ol’ registered Democrat, you.
In the context of tit-for-tat style-over-substance mudslinging, Jesse probably does qualify as a Prominent Democratic Bigot, elective status not withstanding.
Here’s a bit of backup on Gephardt dirt to spice the proceedings.
With a new National Conversation On Race apparently focusing on who waved the Confederate Flag at Congersman Frog’s political rallies, my fingers will be firmly in my ears.
And by the way, Bob, it’s always polite to acknowledge your sources.
3 pages. No systematic, or methodological proof.
I conclude that those making the accusations are unwilling or unable to back up their assertions in a meaningful fashion.
Therefore
-
The accusation that the Republican party or Republicans in general are generally bigoted is baseless
-
The accusation that the Republican or Republicans in general are pursuing an agenda of catering to bigotry is also baseless
Those making the accusations are either ignorant or lying.
The worst kind of lie I think you can make is to slander others for your own gain.
I find that more reprehensible than simple racism or bigotry. There is at least the possibility with bigotry or racism that the cause is stupidity or ignorance, and racist simply doesn’t know better.
Slander though is the deliberate and cunning effort to harm another with deliberate falsehoods.
I still wait for anybody to make even a token attempt at methodical support.
What a stupid thread. Scylla confronts fictional accusers he doesn’t even identify, calls them liars. What naked courage!
That Michigan Daily piece was the “reputable” source I was referring to, Jackmanni. It’s the only one that makes reference to any sort of confirmation, and dates it at 1976. The Newsmax (do I really need to roll my eyes?) piece is just a bunch of unsubstantiated ravings from Gordon Baum, head of the Council of Conservative Citizens–a man with zero credibility, in my personal estimation.
You will also notice that I did give credit for Jesse Jackson, right?
Scylla, stop repeating the same goddamed lie. Nobody in this thread has claimed “that the Republican party or Republicans in general are generally bigoted.” And we have repeatedly provided evidence that the Republican Party has in fact pursued a strategy of coddling bigots for the sake of achieving electoral majorities. You don’t buy it. :shrug: Life goes on, amigo.
Fictional? Seems like quite a few of these fictional characters showed up.
Minty:
Nobody has said that directly, there have been several that the Republican party is currently deliberately pandering to bigotry though. Personally, I think if you pander to bigotry or racism you are a bigot or a racist, so I don’t see the distinction.
Nevertheless, I started this thread asking for those who believe either that Republicans are generally bigoted, or beleive Republicans are pandering to bigots to prove their assertions.
That’s the purpose of this thread.
If you don’t believe either of those things, then we don’t have a problem and I wonder what you’re doing here spending so much effort to show instances or Republican bigotry.
But don’t accuse me of lying. This thread is to support the allegations I’ve named. If nobody is making them or believes them this thing shouldn’t be four pages long.
If you don’t like the questions I’m asking, go start a thread with the questions you want to talk about.
Well big fucking whoop! That’s not the question that’s being asked. That’s not the subject for debate. I’m not sure what it is exactly that you seem to think you’ve proved by answering a different question than the one asked.
In 1964 the Civil rights act was blocked by Democrats. You go back 20-30 years and both parties look like shit, so forgive me if I’m not terribly impressed.
My thesis is that allegations of current bigotry and pandering are false and deliberately so. They are deliberate efforts at slander by Democrats to preserve the status quo of racial tension and polarization that gives them the benefit of minority voting blocks, that is in fact the Democrats who are engaged in a form of pandering to racism.
Sorry, I should have said “stop repeating the same damned strawman” w/r/t to the alleged claim “that the Republican party or Republicans in general are generally bigoted.” As for your second point, like I said: we offered evidence, you rejected it, life goes on.
minty, are you questioning any of the facts represented? I’m curious if there’s another message here, since everything represented is a matter of public record, which I confirmed by viewing multiple sources.
If your point is that there are rabid partisans who exaggerate and lie, you’re preaching to the choir. But that won’t change simple issues of fact (e.g., specific lawsuits filed, appearances made, statements made in public forums, etc.). And this “old registered Democrat” doesn’t need anyone to point out the fine work the Democrats have accomplished, work that should instill real pride. But that doesn’t mean I accept all indictments of Republicans (or support of Dems) at face value.
Please read my post; I specifically point out that I do NOT infer anything sinister regarding the national party from the examples I provided. In fact, I would categorize them as a collection of facts that flatly do NOT imply any sort of national strategy. None. But I still believe they are largely analogous to the examples provided regarding the Republicans, which is the reason I itemized them.
Cuomo was running a gubernatorial campaign that was perceived by some, but not all, as having a racially divisive element to it. How do you decide this one doesn’t count, but others do? How is this different from a Governor who runs on a Confederate flag agenda, one that caters to a specific demographic that is politically advantageous? (BTW, I believe this was a racially divisive campaign, just to make my sentiments clear.) Why don’t you question the Dem participants of this thread who perceive a sinister but subtle Republican agenda, when you question McCall’s assessment of this aspect of Cuomo’s campaign as racially divisive? What is different other than the party under scrutiny?
And Gephardt associated with a white rights group. Yes, he denounced them later, but why exactly do you assume noble motives for him, but not for others who later denounced a prior racist association? Why wasn’t it incumbent upon him to behave as “Ceasar’s wife,” and make sure he wasn’t prodividing credibility to racists?
I agree re: Clinton. It is likely he was a nominal party to the suit, simply by virtue of being Governor. Nonetheless, he was named. Should that be ignored in trying to discern a “pattern”?
Anyway, this thread has become pretty predictable. It’s difficult for me not to assume that for some (not you), any evidence of Republican racism is strong and indicative of a national agenda. Any evidence of the same for Dems is not. Now it’s just name calling.
No, I’m saying that, as a matter of simple ethics, you should reveal your sources when you post something that so closely resembles the original source. You know, intellectual property and copyrights and all that.
**
Thanks for the correction.
So you think these things aren’t said or strongly implied?
You’ve only quoted half the statemtent. I take it you agree the other half is being alleged i.e. the current agenda of pandering to bigotry.
Again, I don’t consider it much of a distinction, and aren’t sure what you’re big point is.
A lot of evidence for something other than what I’ve asked.
And, you’ve offered poor evidence. Since you have not rebutted my objections to the “Selecting” method, I take it you consider my objection valid, and that the evidence is worthless as stated.
If you consider the evidence valid, than you have to deal with my objection. I think it’s a valid and reasonable one.
The “selecting” method? That’s where we offer incidents, and you discount them because they were “selected,” right? Whatever.
I went into detail concerning the objection. To date you have ignored it, or made a quick quip.
You’re picking red M&Ms out of the jar, which is a pointless exercise that tells us more about you, and little about the makeup of the jar.
Here’s another neat little indicator of Republican pandering to Southern bigots, which you will of course ignore.
During the previously-mentioned Confederate flag controversy in South Carolina during the 2000 primaries, both of the Democratic presidential candidates condemned the flag and said it should be removed. All of the Republican presidential candidates refused to say anything bad about the flag, instead taking the craven position that it was a matter for the state to decide. Once again, political expediency cloaked in states’ rights trumped simple morality. Way to go, 'Pubbies!
Note: Even if you honestly consider it a matter for the state to decide–as I do–it doesn’t mean you can’t take a position on what is the just and honorable thing for the state to do. Politicians do that all the time.
Bradley accuses GOP of showing “true colors” on Confederate flag issue
Apologetic McCain [months later] calls for removal of Confederate battle flag from S.C. Statehouse