Whee! You fished in the jar and managed to dig out another red M&M.
I guess you must agree with my objection since you have not bothered to address it, thus begging the question of what you think it is you’re demonstrating?
I see. Constitutionally as a lawyer, you beleive that this is a Federal issue then?
I see. So you agree with them. You are angry with them for referring the question back to its proper venue.
Personally, I would do the same thing. The Confederate flag means different things to different people and I’m not going to demean those to whom it is a symbol of pride. It is unfortunate that the symbol both has some legitimate sources of pride in heritage for some, yet also is a symbol of slavery. Different people look at it and feel different things.
Again, this phenomenom of deriding everything associated with the Confederacy is somewhat recent, at times it’s been popular, again witness things like the “Dukes of Hazard.”
I personally beleive that the flag is best not displayed out of consideration for those with deservedly strong negative feelings.
I stop well short of assuming that anybody and everybody who likes the flag, takes pride in it, is automatically a bigot.
Seeing as it’s a personal issue, I think the Republican silence on the issue was the best answer.
In fact making a big issue about it polarizes it, and is divisive. Which goes to my earlier stated thesis that Democratic candidates are the ones with the agenda. They like to create racial tension and polarize the issues. They encourage it. Racial tension and fear preserves the voting block for them.
If as you stated, you agree with the Republican candidates asessment that it is a state issue, than Senator Bradley’s accusation of racism is a false one.
Surely Bill Bradley knows that it is actually a State issue.
Therefore it’s deliberately false and slanderous accusation, a concrete example of a Democrat fomenting racial dissent and creating racial tension so that he can make false accusations and gain political advantage.
How can they go against the NAACP and the ACP and move the flag to an even more prominent position.
What an abhorent slap in the face! What more proof of pervasive Democratic bigotry and racism do you need?
I am disgusted by such pandering.
The evidence is right before your eyes! You brought it to light. If you wish to hide your head in the sand about your parties agenda of bigotry and racial dissent, be it then on your head.
Though this is clearly against my better judgment, I’ll give it a try.
It depends on the kind of commonality you are appealing to, obviously. JFK declared that he was a Berliner in the context of unity, democracy, and love of freedom. I believe that these principles cater to what is best and loftiest in man.
Ashcroft, on the other hand, appealed to a different sort of commonality when he accused Ronnie White of being “pro-criminal” and “soft on crime.” I contend that this appeals to the lowest biases in Mississippi voters, which effectively sank Ronnie White’s campaign.
Can I prove this? Nope. This would require honest answers from Ashcroft as well a honest answers from thousands of Mississippi voters. I do not believe that this is likely to happen.
Yet I have no difficulty whatsoever presuming, based upon the “dots,” that many important Republican national figures pander to the worst common denominator.
But my opinion is not really relevant. I am a New York City voter, and honestly, I am pretty out of touch with the rest of the USA. I also fully admit my own provincial Yankee biases, and I admit that they are damned difficult to eradicate, try as I might.
I don’t think that endless googling of the keywords republican, campaign, and racism would be all that instructive. Most of the results are opinion pieces and are pretty short on the hard evidence that people are looking for. So I am going to present some evidence of my own.
I am presuming that all of the individuals who post their opinions on the internet are fundamentally honest. While the degree of their honesty may vary by degree, I see no reason to doubt the fundamental spirit of what they are saying.
So, at the cost of my immortal soul, I spent some time on everyone’s favorite white supremacist message board, Stormfront.. I was really surprised by the result. Before I even got around to plugging in the search term Republican, I found this downright gem of a thread, entitled “Republican partyis [sic] the only choice for white people.”
For copyright reasons I am only going to post bits of text that I find subjectively interesting. I am going to try not to misrepresent or decontextualize anything, so if you don’t want to read the thread itself, give me the benefit of the doubt that I am reporting it accurately. There are some objectionable images on the site. While they are all work-friendly, many may find them highly offensive.
The OP is confusing and contradictory, but here is its basic premise:
There was profound disagreement from the white supremacist fringe.
I am not surprised that the friendly people over at Stormfront are not satisfied that the GOP is insufficiently racist, I am surprised indeed that many of them do not even think that “GW Bush Republicans” are even “race-conscious.”
I am not arguing anything terribly controversial here. It’s no huge surprise that the fringe is attempting to distance itself from the mainstream. I am interested in investigating the reception of neo-conservatives and “GW Bush Republicans” in geographical regions with a history of racial prejudice, if not out-and-out white supremacy. I think this is a project best served by trawling the message boards of politics.com and FreeRepublic.
This enterprise is limited, however, due to the self-selecting nature of the internet. I don’t think there is much argument that racial prejudice and lack of education vary directly, and that it takes a certain amount of education to post on an internet message board in the first place.
Nevertheless, in order to uncover the biases of the electorate and of Republican candidates, I think you have to investigate the opinions of the voters directly. And lacking a multimillion dollar grant, wasting time on the internet on Christmas Eve seems like a pretty reasonable alternative. Anyone else think it’s worth it? Scylla?
I really don’t give much of a rat’s ass if Gephardt got a bit of a boost from a “white’s rights” group in '76; what he believes and has supported in recent times is what counts. Likewise for all the blabber about the Confederate flag and voting for a King holiday, issues that really count for next to nothing in most people’s lives. But these “issues” are the focus in the current squabble.
It’s not hard to make a case that the Democratic Party does more useful things for black people than the Republicans. So if this is to be a major issue in light of the Lott meltdown, the Dems should be focusing on affirmative action, voting reform etc. (and it’s been rather quiet in those arenas recently). The hammering on superficialities lends credence to suspicions that 1) the actual issues aren’t that favorable to the Dems among voters overall, and 2) the current brouhaha reflects Democratic desperation for an issue, any issue rather than genuine concern for minorities.
Oh, and I hear Bill Frist has a Stonewall Jackson tattoo on his left bicep.
Sylla, I say this with all due respect. You are a fool. I am sure people have tried to point this out to you before, as I know I did. Your argument suggests that any one of us has access to the entirety of all data on recent campaign methods and opinions (i.e. we might be able to see the whole jar of M&M’s). You suggest that we then pick out the red ones selectively to make a point. Well, we do not have access to the whole jar. We have only access to information available on the internet or in news stories.
I suspect that you raised this because of your own doubts and fears. You have to answer it for yourself, because you are not mindful of what others are telling you. Are you comfortable being a member of a party which employed a national strategy of racial polarization in the recent past and up to the present, and which can be shown to have public members who engage in the number of individual incidents as can be demonstrated by about 15 people using only public record? If so, fine, you are not alone. If not, work to change your party. Nonetheless, we can’t answer that one for you.
Further, I hope it is not de rigueur around here to post three or four posts in a row in response to your own posts - no wonder one might end up with over 7,000 posts.
It’s asinine to call me a fool when making such a stupid assertion.
Of course, I realize that one cannot look at the sum enitrety of all campaigns across all populations.
Had you been able to read and retain information you would realize that’s exactly why I suggested a sample in my OP, and provided the format for taking a sample.
Then again, to aid the intellectually challenged I repeated what constitutes a fair sample in no fewer than 7 occasions.
Than I made analogies about M&Ms and taking a representative sample rathern than selecting.
Than I suggested I would be open to other fair methodologies.
And now, you sit there calling me a fool because you have missed all 8 or more times that I addressed this?
Scylla: I’m amazed that you take the same craven position as the Republicans re the Confederate flag. I suppose if you can state with a straight face that flying a symbol of treason and slavery is a state issue, then there really isn’t anything that will convince you.
BTW, I did post some evidence from impartial sources concerning constant attempts by Republicans to quash minority voting all over the country. Not to mention that most of us of a darker persuasion consider the legalistic formulation that flying the Confederate flag is a state issue to be a huge, huge sign of disrespect for us. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
My opinion of you has fallen to a new low.
By the way, the first three articles I posted concerned Senate races. Took me a long time to find those articles too.
I made a real attempt to answer you, and now I’m sitting here thinking why? Why would I bother?
Never again.
I read your post. Thanks for going to the trouble. I would be surprised if the flyer about changing the election day was effective. I don’t question that some idiot would do this, I just think it would be inefficient. This information is all over the news. How could you not know about election day. The people that don’t know probably wouldn’t vote in any case. Still no excuse for this kind of illegal activity.
All of these accusations from both Republicans and Democrats makes me wish we had a credible third party. These two are so busy defining the other and making remarks that are evasive, it makes me just through with it.
Good point, Scylla. Say, by the way, what was the name of that black character in Dukes?
I divert from my usual style of direct and pithy insights (ahhhhh, c’mon, its Christmas, be nice…) to sketch something not entirely arguable.
Ever see one of those YeeHaw flags on a black mans car? Of course not. It carries overtones of racism. Now I’m white, of pure-d peckerwood stock, and I wouldn’t either. So who would?
Someone who is either not aware of its connotation or is entirely aware. Regional pride? Maybe, but then why do you see so many in places like Montana?
My point, and I do have one, is that such symbolism permits innuendos that are, as you have so tirelessly demonstrated, deniable: you can’t prove that the message is specificly racist. So, if you can use such suggestion, you reach the people who you want to reach, assuring them of your fundamental sympathy, without alienating the vast majority. The gain is relatively small, nationwide, but the political divide in this country is even smaller. Its kind of like Israel where the balance between Labor and Likud is so narrow, the real power falls in the hands of the smaller minoritys. Therefore, it pays for the Pubbies to have a Southern strategy, but only up to a point.
Mr. Rove apparently believes that point has been reached, and I think he’s probably right. If anybody knows, its him, the Eminence Greasy.
Either way, the era when racism was acceptable form for any political party is over. With any luck, if our children should come across this debate thirty years from now, they won’t have any idea what we’re talking about, or at least find it hard to believe that anything so silly would sieze so much attention.
Perhaps its best if we just celebrate that fact, and move on. We got plenty of other stuff to fight about.
It is. That seems to me admittedly elementary of constitutional law to be a fact.
I support the Republican stance of keeping your yap shut on this.
I personally beleive the flag should be quietly and without fanfare taken down. I think the Republicans wisely decided not to try and make an issue out of it. Bill Bradley on the other hand seemed pretty intent on making as big an issue out of it as possible. What does this accomplish but dissent, and hard feelings and renewed racial tension on both sides?
Like I said, the Democrats seem pretty intent on creating and perpetuating racial issues. It brings in the votes.
So, what did the vocal Democrats accomplish by making this an issue? Let’s see, they pissed off a bunch of rednecks, made a bunch of black people feel bad, had some fun accusing some Republicans of racist pandering for not picking at scabs and lobbing grenades into an area of high racial tensions, and, when it was all said and done, they pissed everybody off by removing the flag and putting it into an even more prominent position!
Oh yeah, there’s a victory for peace and goodwill and bridging racial gaps.
What a bunch of fucking morons.
I’m sorry. I must have missed your post while I was out sailing on the Crimea River.
(actually, I did completely miss it. No need to get pissy. It’s pretty much just me, and I’m fielding a lot of posts.)
Ok, let’s see. Accusations of voter fraud. You say these things are like FL. in 2000. Ok. Nothing happened in FLorida in 2000 except that the media pronounced FL. for Gore in violation of some law or agreement while the polls were still open. I think that accusation of voter harassment is sheer bullshit. It’s been discussed to death in other threads, and I don’t want to go back there.
As for the other instances, well, Democrats do seem to have something of a History of getting out the vote with buses, and trading votes for cigarettes, leading the homeless to voting booths and other such shenanigans so it doesn’t surprise me the Republicans are on guard.
Really gotta have some cites here. Yessirreee, Bob. Gonna need at least, at least three. Especially that “leading homeless to voting booths” one, that’s a doozy, a ring-tailed rip snorter!
Yep. bring em on. The cites, the proof and stuff. I’ll wait right here. I’ll even mention it again in case you forget, being so busy and all. No, don’t thank me, glad to do it. Hell, its Christmas.
For you the Confederate flag means one thing and one thing only. For most black people it means one thing and one thing only.
For some other people it means different things, some of them good and worthy.
For others it is surely nothing but a deniable racist statement.
I spent some time in the deep south as a kid, and I went to school there. They teach a different version of American History in some of those schools than you may be familiar with. For some people the confederacy and the confederate flag is a positive symbol, for reasons that have nothing to do with race or the history of slavery. Slavery after all, existed under both flags, you know?
The stars and stripes are not free of the taint.
Personally I think the Confederate flag is legitimately offensive to blacks both becuase of slavery, and because of its reconstitution into a symbol of resistance to desegregation.
Other people have other opinions, particularly in the South. It doesn’t make them bigots.
I think a politician, if he is interested in peace and goodwill and bridging racial gaps shouldn’t go into such a sensitive issue and create a problem. It looks to me like there’s a very strong possibility that the Democrats attempted to stir up as much fear and racial tension and trouble as they could. They did it to villify their opponents, and polarize the situation to protect their voting blocks.
The same is true in reverse, of course, the main difference being that there’s one hell of a lot more white people.
At this point in time, the existence of a “Southern strategy”, as designed by Nixon, is accepted as a historical fact. It was a highly successful, if cravenly cynical political ploy. Perhaps the men who perpetrated it, and perpetuated it, believed that the ends justified the means.
You seem convinced that it has long since ceased to be, against reasonable evidence. I believe it has recently deceased, at the hands of Karl Rove, as symbolized by making Trent walk the plank and sleep with the fishes. And good riddance, no matter what party you are gulled by. Let’s dance on its grave!
It probably died a natural death, of advanced demographics. Most of my thoroughly racist redneck kin are dead, I imagine that pretty common, regardless of geography. Hence, from Day One the Southern strategy was subject to diminishing returns. The younger Southerner not only is not drawn to racist sentiments and symbolism, he is actually offended.
Nonetheless, here lies the Southern strategy, bereft of life, it rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, this is an ex-strategy. The exact time of death: open to question. But dead now.
OK, so how about now as the baseline? If the Republicans maintain thier commitment, the Dumbocrats should not seek to use race for political gain. As gentlemen, we agree that whichever party shall fail, we will stand in unison sternly berating the offending party.
{On preview: the cites. Check 'em later, but, before I do, is one of them “Rush”? Is that who I think it is? The Orca of the Airwaves? You sure you don’t want to edit this list?}