Not true at all. And of course the two parties don’t believe that either.
The idea that people who wanted to be there couldn’t have made it happen is really goofy.
The first comment from the linked article is
This is remarkably dense of the GOP. Very curious strategy. It is as if they actually have chosen to not care if they look like backward bigots. I wonder how the apologists will spin this. Surely the canard about how the invitations were sent late is absurd on the face of it. It isn’t as if the GOP was unaware of the upcoming anniversary. The leadership of both parties were invited at the same time (as far as I understand), and to a man the GOP leadership turned down the invitation.
I try not to attribute to malice that which I can attribute to incompetence. This is a toss-up in my opinion.
The problem for Republicans is this is no longer true. The Republicans are losing their reputation for being the foreign policy party. That was demonstrated in the last election - it was Romney not Obama that had to prove his foreign policy credentials.
Of course they are. They’ve spent decades catering to and recruiting racists; it may have started mostly as cynical maneuvering for votes, but by now the racists largely are the party. The Republican Party is the White Racist party.
On the whole, they don’t. They are “backwards bigots”, their base is dominated by bigots. They certainly don’t want to look un-bigoted, they’d alienate their base.
Incompetency can be blamed at first; but IMHO, how they are dealing with that snafu fits the now usual Republican maneuver of shooting themselves in the foot.
Sorry, was stirring the pot a bit based on what he actually said in the video piece attached to the article. With the truth being reported, we know that he was either lying or grossly misinformed. Just thought it was amusing how, as usual, that side of the aisle chose to twist and reframe the story to fit their agenda. They are masters of the craft.
True, because the best they could have hoped for from this was that their lack of attendance would be regarded as ignorance. If they push it and make a major issue out of it, it’ll look like they planned all this and it’ll move up from ignorance to an intentional boycott. And if the Republicans think they can spin their way out of that hole, they’ve been sniffing glue.
Yeah, I felt the same way when I read that, and when I saw the painting he made of his dog.
Honestly, now that he’s retired, I can kind of see why people voted him. He really does have good charisma. When he’s not doing something morally reprehensible on the global stage on a nearly daily basis, he’s kind of likable. I keep reading things about him and thinking, “Was he really as bad as I remember?”
And then I think, “Oh, right. War crimes.”
It seems that Republicans are incapable of doing the right thing, every action must be weighed by the impact on the next election. Attending would gain them zero votes and incur the wrath of the Tea Klux Klan, therefore it is politically expedient for them to skip the event. It isn’t true by any stretch that all Republicans are racists, but it is true that virtually all racists are Republicans. This is their base, whom they dare not offend.
I’m rather surprised that one individual hasn’t popped in to turn this into a debate on whether skipping the event was legal or not.
It helps that you don’t have to listen to him speak.
Honestly, I think that W is, personally, a fundamentally decent person, and not in the least racist. Unfortunately, he’s also an idiot who allowed himself to be manipulated by people who were not in the least fundamentally decent.
Democrats appearing to honor MLK and the March included the President and two former Presidents of the United States. Can the King family be blamed for hoping for Republicans of comparable stature? Both ex-President Bushes can be excused, with severe health problems, but there are several Republicans of great stature: Senators, Governors, former Presidential candidates, etc.
But the Republicans proposed by GOP leadership to speak featured a former Congressman, and a state legislator. Their special qualifications? The color of their skin – precisely the criterion King came to Washington to oppose.
Is it naive for me to imagine residents of D,D.wanting to attend the ceremonies whether invited to speak or not? Evidently: GOP leaders were happy to shun the ceremonies altogether when given speaking invitations with only two weeks’ notice.
At about 2:28 of the second video on that page (the one where BO is talking to James Carville), why does BO call JC “Charles”?
In Bill O’Reilly’s defense (I can’t believe I just wrote that) he did apologize for getting it wrong.
This doesn’t happen often, and needs to be pointed out and encouraged.
That’s all they had to work with. The only black Republican in Congress is Sen. Tim Scott, and he declined to attend. He says now that if the organizers had re-invited him and offered him a chance to speak, he would have gone. (Fun fact: Scott did serve a term in the House, but he was appointed to the Senate. He also refused to join the Congressional Black Caucus.) There are no black governors from either party. So if Scott couldn’t make it, they didn’t have much to work with.
The GOP is strong on foreign policy? Really? The GOP that got us into a totally unnecessary war in Iraq and is DYING to get us into an unnecessary war with Iran? THAT GOP?
Not much to work with? How is 47 senators, 242 representatives, and 30 governors “not much to work with”?
Which of them has anything particularly relevant to say on this occasion? I was genuinely surprised they invited McCain. He’s probably the last person in Congress who opposed the law (although he eventually changed his mind).
And, frankly, when the excuse is “I had a town hall meeting or a speech to some conservative interest group to give that day”, you’ve already blown the optics with your sense of priorities. There’s one 50th anniversary for this event – go rouse up some crowd over defunding Obamacare another day.
I remember the day after the 2012 election with conservative commentators saying “We had Rice and Rubio and Martinez on stage at the convention! How could anyone say we don’t respect minorities!” as though they were sincerely befuddled at how marching a couple minorities over a stage (before a sea of white people) doesn’t just make up for decades of dog-whistle racial attacks, legislation aimed against minorities (while swearing it really isn’t) and straight-up dumb decisions like this one.
But, hey, you got a few darker skinned people on a stage so that ought to be good for five or six percent at the polls, right?