You do know all, or most of the leaders of Project 21 are white? Click here for some of the staff photos.

They are conservative and they have black members but, no, they are not a black conservative group. Your main point is a good one btw, but not new.

As I understand it, Project 21 is a subset of the National Center, and has its own leadership, which appears to be African-American.

But as you mention, the point is valid and that is the issue at hand. And certainly the recent attacks on Rice, in particular, and the recent Wisconsin radio case make it worth repeating.

This is a complicated situation and I am on the fence.

Liberals - white and black - seem to believe that blacks should favour liberal policies either out of enlightened self-interest. When someone breaks those expectations, there is a tendency to react by criticizing her consciousness and calling her false to her race (and gender). There is also a tendency to demean her honesty and sincerity in arguing that she has adopted conservative principles that get her ahead instead of the principles that her critics (liberals, black and white) think that she ought to have.

Her critics should engage with her values instead of wondering if a black woman should have those values.

However character does matter. Is she driven by ambition or principles? Who has she hurt and left behind as she has advanced her career?

The presence of blacks at the top levels of power in government is important as a matter of appearances and as test of America's commitment to equality. If her presence in the Cabinet is supposed to show that the President Republican party respects able black persons, and that the Republican position on social policy (success by personal competition on a level playing field without government support for any players) are good, the question of whether she has the real respect of the President is relevant.

In modern politics the question of style and substance is important too. She seems poised and confidant, and is not dogged by questions about her intellect and achievements.

Surely she can't play the race card to avoid answering her critics?

BK, you bring up many important points, but what does she have to answer for? As far as I can tell, the assumption with these cartoons and verbal assaults is that being black and a Republican or a conservative automatically makes one less "fully black," a sell-out, not worthy of respect, lacking any call to human dignity, and most specifically, deserving of racist imagery and symbols of the most blatant and ugly kind.

Who has to answer to whom here?

Project 21, as I have blogged previously, is a front group run by far Right foundations and the GOP. Among those funding it are Olin and Bradley. Both have longterm ties to the eugenics movement -- which is usually a 'polite' form of advocacy of white supremacy. The fact that there are people of color who can be bought and attached to ventures such as these says nothing positive about the organizations actual character. This sort of thing has been going on since slavery. The phrase 'rent-a-Tom' has been around for a very long time.

That serves these purposes:

~ Creates the illusion the GOP is more diverse than it is. (About one percent of elected African-American officials are Republicans. Eighty-eight percent of people who voted for Bush are white.)

~ Reassures the conservative white people who are the main audience for shenanigans like Project 21 that the darkies are dumb and not a threat.

~ Entertains that audience. The unabashedly white supremacist League of the South uses a black man to carry the Confederate flag for public events for the same reason.

Kudos to Temple Stark and Brave Kelso. I love it when people are well-informed about civil rights topics.

I agree with Eric, but would extend his argument to note that ideology trumps both race and gender in some cases.

Very similar treatment is applied to prominent conservative women by leftist feminist organizations. I recall especially comments denigrating the authenticity of Prime Minister Thatcher "as a woman", due to her staunchly conservative policies.

And of course there was a recent US case in which a high-profile Democrat politician was accused of inappropriate office sexual conduct with an low-power intern, and also of a rape earlier in his career. These accusations did not prompt calls for his resignation by NOW. It was only his political opponents who demanded this.

Perhaps such organizations are not that much about what they profess to be all about. Of course hypocracy is part of being human, IMHO, so those pointing out such offenses should do so with the same gentleness they would hope to receive when (not if) the same correction is required for them.

Yours is gentle, Eric!

fair ponits, but there is something you have missed. Politicians, regardless of race, become "fair game" for cartoonists when they get famous. I've never seen complaints about the accentuations of features of famous white politicians (though they probably exist, i suspect in very small numbers). Why should it suddenly become a big issue if the famous politician in question is coloured?
Your other points are issues i know not enough about to comment

The point as it remains -- regardless of efforts to shoot the messenger and then call his corpse "Tom" -- is that the cartoons and verbal attacks use racist symbolism and language as if it is somehow justified by the political positions of those under attack, and the civil rights establishment is mute on the matter.

So I guess that means overt racism is okay as long as it's directed against conservatives and/or Republicans.

So how do you tell if it's racist symbolism of simple characature?

You want the truth, she's simply not on my side. I don't defend everything every Black person does, nor do I leap to the defense of those who work against my interest. I'm moral, not stupid.

typo.

racist symbolism OR simple characature?

It looks like I must be more explicit to get my point across:

African-Americans are not criticizing Ted Rall. Most of the politically aware would agree with what he said. The bought and paid for RATs of Project 21 are -- supposedly* -- Rall's critics. The racism in this situation is coming from the handlers of the handerchief heads at Project 21. They are trying to use their Negroes to discredit liberal commentators, both black and white. That is bigotry because it perceives blacks as tools to be used by whites. Supposedly? The words may be issuing from dark faces, but the thoughts are not. They are coming from the white people who actually run Project 21.

Eric Olsen, a Bush supporter, is tone deaf when it comes to race relations. That is why he is promoting Project 21, even after being informed that it is a front group run by Right Wing white people, claiming to speak for African-Americans.

More to the point, the people who are questioning the civil rights organizations' "silence" are the very ones that want them to shut up on every other topic.

They have no credibility, and in fact besmirch those causes they associate with by their presence.

Sylvester has apologized for calling Dr. Rice an "aunt jemima" and according to the same article Kweisi Mfume the president of the NAACP has also said the attacks from Sylvester "are just as bad as those who hide under sheets and burn crosses." This was from an article on Yahoo news.

Let me see if I get all of this straight: racism is fine as long as the object of the racism is "not on your side," which I assume is determined by political position.

Project 21 has "no credibility" because there are white people involved at some level, or because it is a conservative organization? Weren't white people involved in the founding of the NAACP?

Who determines legitimacy? And who determines who is and who isn't "politically aware"?

And when is "simple caricature" that includes "racist symbolism" okay? Is that also determined by political position?

your supposed concern about Condoleezza Rice being called 'Aunt Jemima' is beyond hypocritical, Eric Olsen.

For persons genuinely interested in the civil rights/free speech issues, I've posted an (a href="http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/11/23/100447.php">entry about the controversy here. I disinvite Eric Olsen and Andy Marsh from participating in the thread. They've already made their views in regard to using abusive language toward a woman of color painfully clear.

Live link, hopefully.

As for the sophistry that Olsen is attempting here -- equating the participation of some whites in the NAACP with the far Right setting up and running front groups that operate against the interest of people of color -- I believe that any intelligent person can distinguish the difference.

speaking of outrageous sophistry, I have ignored being "disinvited to participate" in the above referenced thread and made note of a few, um, discrepancies

disinvite this!

And when is "simple caricature" that includes "racist symbolism" okay? Is that also determined by political position?

I see, so symbolism only counts sometimes, as determined by .. whom, exactly?

What astonishes me is ANYONE having the gall to set themselves up as the arbiter of who is and who is not "legitmate" and worthy of being treated with simple human dignity, based upon, for all I have heard thus far, their political affiliation.

I guess the 10-15% (or whatever the exact number is) of African-Americans who happen to be Republican or conservative deserve whatever racism comes their way. After all, they asked for it by having the outrageous, automatically delegitimizing nerve, or lack or intelligence, or lack of "political awareness," or some other heinous crime not yet defined; but whatever IT is, it's their own fault and they deserve whatever racism comes their way, right?

Treating people with "simple human dignity,' would mean disciplining Andy Marsh for referring to a Blogcritics member as a "bitch" and an "ass." To rush to the defense of Condoleezza Rice when she is called 'Aunt Jemima,' while supporting much worse behavior deprives anything you have to say on this topic of any legitimacy, Eric Olsen.

I see: since I have never kicked anyone out of Blogcritics for content violations, other than the two-week suspension of an individual for calling YOU a vulgar name, everything I have to say can be comfortably ignored. This is remarkably convenient considering not a single logical diescrepancy I have mentioned has been addressed, explained or supported.

"The phrase 'rent-a-Tom' has been around for a very long time."

Cite?

"Michael King is barely literate."

Another personal attack on a fellow BlogCritic. Cute...

ah yes, I missed that claim about Michael. I have read Michael often and can vouch for his literacy, intelligence and apparent sanity. Perhaps he wishes to obtain the exact same goals as you do via different methods; perhaps he is neither stupid, nor uneducated, nor insane, nor bought off, nor illegitimate, nor a front for anyone at all - perhaps he just has different opinions from yours.

How would this look coming the other way? What if someone accused you of all those things simply because you had different political opinions from theirs?

There may be legitimate black conservatives. (In fact, I may even know some.) But, the people bought and paid for by Project 21 are toys, pure and simple. Furthermore, someone who thinks that quoting from a press release by Project 21 is superior 'research' to tracing its money trail is completely out of his depth. He might as well go spin some records or something.

I would think the bigger issue here is not who Eric referenced in his piece but the blatant racist remarks and editorial cartoons towards Dr. Rice and Gen Powell!

"Furthermore, someone who thinks that quoting from a press release by Project 21 is superior 'research' to tracing its money trail is completely out of his depth. He might as well go spin some records or something."

I guess you're saying Eric is too stupid to grasp your point, and he should go back to playing music?

According to Dictionary.com:

bitch: noun - "A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing."

ass: noun - "A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person."

Do ya'll know anyone who these terms might be applicable to? :)

Comment 26: But much more abusive remarks by the person hypocritically whinnying there should be ignored, eh? Beat up poor Sylvester. Buy a Neandertal who refers to women as 'bitch,' and 'ass' a drink. There is a double standard alright, but it is not coming from "liberals."

RJ - I like that site...dictionary.com...I've found it to be very useful in the past! theasurus.com is also pretty useful!

RJ Elliott.

did somebody say free drinks???

And we know they are "toys" - and I assume therefore dismissable on every level and beneath contempt - how exactly? Who determines toy-ism?

Would these legitimate black conservatives you may even know approve of these instances of racism against other, apparently illegitimate, black conservatives? Another interesting sidenote - Powell isn't even "conservative" - he's about as moderate as it gets.

There was no "research" involved in quoting a press release, nor did I claim there to be. I received a press release that struck me as addressing an important and interesting subject involving what I see as hypocrisy and double-standards perpetuated by black and white hard-liberals alike when it comes to treatment of conservative, moderate and-or Republican blacks. So I addressed it.

I have heard not a single syllable that leads me to think otherwise since, not even being called a "disc jockey."

My degrees in political science and philosophy, minors in East Asian studies and religion, graduate work in the humanities, 25 years as a journalist, critic, author, radio and TV commentator, 20 years as a parent, 46 years of living on earth, are ALL rendered immaterial by the fact that I have spent some of my time DJing at parties, clubs, and on the radio.

Dammit, found out and put in my place again!! When will I learn to shut the hell up about anything other than "spinning records"?

Okay, how about I go away until conversation starts again?

er...just on the ponit of caricatures again, Eric, check out this definition from (funnily enough) dictionary.com:
"A representation, especially pictorial or literary, in which the subject's distinctive features or peculiarities are deliberately exaggerated to produce a comic or grotesque effect"
i would figure that, therefore, of course you can expect to see "racial" features present in a caricature of a coloured person. Exactly as you would in a caricature of a white person. Or a martian. Or a cat. That's the point of caricatures, they exaggerate identifiable features, most often to the ponit of absurdity. And i say again, i bet you've never complained about caricatures of white politicans.
Sure, caricatures are almost universally mean about their subjects, but if you're gonna complain about one you should complain about them all.

jadester, this is a good general point, but I am most concerned about Rall's characterization of Rice as Bush's "house nigga," Sylvester calling her "Aunt Jemima" and Powell "Uncle Tom," and the apparent acceptance of this from the civil rights leadership (thanks for the update Andy, will include that info) and left in general about this

Why can't we just address the fact or the issue. This isn't about what Mac or Eric or Andy or does on a personal level. It's about what constitutes racism and why some orgs are silent when they should be calling the racism out. Now do you think that Eric's blog (not eric himself) has merit or not.

Good point, Jade. I have generous lips. If someone were to caricature me and not make my lips delectable, I would wonder what was wrong with the cartoonist.

Peter, Eric's claim in the blog entry is pretty baseless. The main peopel crying crocodile tears over 'racism' against Rice and Powell are white conservatives. Particularly offensive is that Eric wrote it to try to portray himself as a protector of blacks. (The more distant and not in need of protection the blacks are the better, apparently.) Meanwhile, nearly every person of color who has participated in Blogcritics has left because Eric allows his coterie of Right Wing white men to abuse us. He is about as qualified to present himself as a protector of people of color as he is to sprout wings and fly.

all I will say to this latest nonsense is that I will ignore it just as I ignore the almost daily calls for your ouster from the group

I just checked out the Project 21 website. Its tone, at least, supports Mac Diva's claim that it's a "front," in the sense of being a right-wing propaganda machine aimed at black Americans rather than an organization specifically concerned with the well-being of African-Americans. Get this: they put out a press release about a website run by one of their members which "details ties between Saddam Hussein and terrorism" with, at the bottom, a description of themselves as a "nonpartisan organization." I'll skip making the usual criticisms of such propaganda and merely ask, What the hell does that subject have to do with black people, white people, or any color people?

Their stated mission is to "promote the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility has not traditionally been echoed by the nation's civil rights establishment." I'd like to know in what sense the civil rights establishment has not echoed these things. They think the civil rights movement was about anti-family and pro-welfare state? Is that what they're saying? Pretty darn partisan (and disingenuous) if you ask me.

John, those of us in the know have been keeping tabs on Project 21 for years. Here is a good summary of what it is -- a front group owned and operated by the far Right whites. The fellow who runs the website, who is white, of course, often seems clueless. I don't believe he has any idea of what to say to real people of color.

I have written at least a half-dozen blog entries about Project 21 and another front group. Prior to this controversy, they were involved in an ad campaign attacking black fathers. I haven't even gotten around to blogging Project 21's ties to the tobacco industry. 'Misleading' barely describes what it is.

Interesting article and there is doubtless some truth to it, although I would hardly call an article in Alternet written by a college student and editor of USC's "fiercely progressive voice of reason" "unbiased" - would you? It will color my response to Project 21 press releases.

However, I never held up Project 21 as an authoritative source on anything, I received a press release from them that brought up very salient points that have only now been partially addressed with the apology from Sylvester for calling blacks, ANY blacks, Uncle Tom and Aunt Jemima.

I gave my own opinions, which still stand: racism is racism regardless if the target is liberal, conservative, middle, or apolitical.

. . .unless it is coming from "good-natured" Andy Marsh. Then, it is to be applauded.

I gave my own opinions, which still stand: racism is racism regardless if the target is liberal, conservative, middle, or apolitical.

and what racist comment have I made??? Can you point to ONE??? Just one! Come on, surely you can come up with ONE comment I made that was racist!

That's what I thought, as usual, mac diva attempts to blow smoke up peoples asses again!

I would say that the most blatantly racist comment I've seen today was on another thread.

The one that said " I do not consider the term 'Aunt Jemima' racist if it is used appropriately."

That is a racist statement. Made by mac diva. You could replace aunt jemima with any other racial slur and it would sound just as ugly.

Is it supposed to be any less ugly coming from you???

You are by far the biggest hypocrite I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

I believe Andy is basically good-natured and has demonstrated as much toward virtually everyone else he has addressed on this site, including those with whom he disagrees.

He allowed you to get to him and he said things he shouldn't have, which were DELETED and for which HE APOLOGIZED.

You have ignored his apology and repeated the words with a persistence that borders on the autistic ever since.

As we have gone over ad nauseum, you started it with him at his very first appearance, dismissing him as having nothing whatsoever to add to the conversation, telling him to shut up and go away. He did not take it very well - who would?

An independent observer would not be insane to conclude that you have a persecution complex, which you then smokescreen with charges of racism.

What is particularly unfortunate is that there are real incidents of racism, the ghosts of institutional racism still haunt the nation in many REAL forms, and when the term is bandied about casually, it makes it much easier for those inclined to downplay or ignore these real incidents or ramifications.

'Bitch' and 'ass' qualify as both racist and misogynist when targeted toward a woman of color. Perhaps Eric should applaud Andy Marsh as "good-natured" twice for having used them.

I believe when I used them, I actually didn't even know you were a woman of color...and I've never used them to signify any color, just attitude. I don't think I ever called you an ass. You may have me mistaken for the myriad others that have...As Eric pointed out, I did use the other term to describe you...I later apologized for it, obviously you missed that post...or just chose to ignore it as you do MOST OF THE FACTS that any one might present against any opinion you have.

I am amazed at the bizarre charges being hurled against Project 21. As a black libertarian commentator, I have worked with Project 21 for years. Since 1985, I have known Amy and David Ridenour, the directors of Project 21's parent organization, the National Center for Public Policy Research. In all this time, the Ridenours, Project 21 coordinator David Almasi, and others involved in this non-profit have treated me with nothing but dignity, respect, and friendship. I have encountered nothing even remotely related to eugenics, white supremacy, or anything that could be confused for that.

In fact, the entire enterprise is dedicated to the idea that black Americans should be free to think for ourselves and should be liberated from the oppressive notion that being black means one must be a liberal statist.

Free-market ideas, entrepreneurship, and limited government offer black Americans an alternative to the big-government "solutions" that have failed us for decades (e.g. disastrous government schools, anti-business red tape, collapsing public housing, etc.).

As for the idea that those of us who work with Project 21 have "sold out," I have one simple question: Where is my check? Project 21 does a great job of booking me for radio and TV appearances. I don't believe even one of those engagements has earned me one thin dime.

Those of us black conservatives and libertarians who work with Project 21 do so because we share a belief in individual freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, free enterprise, and peace through strength. We do not get paid for this.

How many black folks would sit around to be mocked by white supremacists for free?

Those who criticize us should drop the childish hysterics and simply accept the fact that we are free men and women, black Americans all, and we will not stop thinking for ourselves.

The cottton plantations were liberated in 1863. When will the masters of the liberal plantation let center-right black Americans walk away in freedom?

Deroy Murdock
Syndicated columnist,
Scripps Howard News Service
New York City

Thank you very much for your input Deroy, very sensible and much appreciated.

Anyone who follows the money trail and looks at the stances Project 21 takes can tell that it is a front group funded and controlled by white conservatives (the 'friends' Delroy Murdock refers to). The day being a puppet becomes 'freedom' will be a strange one, indeed. Case closed.

Mr. Murdock:

You were doing so well until you lapsed into empty rhetoric at the end.

You're not getting paid, you're getting played. You don't get paid, but your director does.

In the interest of being thorough, he can be read further:

•At -- you guessed it -- Free Republic. How dare Ted Kennedy question Bush
in regard to WMD? Here.

•Daring Delroy lobbies for a flat tax and liberation from Marxism in the U.S.A.

Prometheus 6 has been on to Delroy for a while.

I would direct you to more, but there isn't much to choose from. For someone who claims to be a syndicated columnist, Murdock appears to have published very little.

I don't want to get in a fight here, but when I clicked on the link you gave for Murdock there is a spot on the page right across from his name that says author archive and there are, it would appear to be, a few hundred articles there.

Aw, damn, there's typos in that post.

It might help in your google search if you spelled his name right, dimwit.

Mr. Murdock says:
we share a belief in individual freedom, personal responsibility, limited government, free enterprise, and peace through strength.

That's interesting. Switch out the last one with humanitarianism and those are the values that make me a progressive!
Individual freedom: woman's right to choose, keeping government out of the bedroom, etc.
Personal responsibility: leaving this planet liveable for our children, no driving gas hogs, speaking out and fighting corporate pollution, not snubbing our noses at those less fortunate, but being a responsible good samaritan and giving a helping hand so that they can then begin their own personal responsibility, etc.
Limited government: see individual freedom. Also opposed to government pandering to big business at the expense of the citizen.
Free enterprise: I love capitalism, which is why the government needs to ensure there are no monopolies (I consider Microsoft such) or mega-monoliths, (I consider Wal-Mart such) which do more harm than good.
Peace through strength: I don't believe in this one, that's why I'm not a conservative. I don't believe that being perceived as a big bully to intimidate is the way to achieve peace. It certainly hasn't worked for us in the Middle East. Replace this value with humanitarism, helping those down and out, being considerate and listening to other people/nations, and you've got one heck of a progressive!

oh yeah, and I subscribe to those moral values of that liberal Jesus.

comment #22:

"...since i have never kicked anyone out of blogcritics for content violations, except for the two-week suspension of one individual for call YOU a vulgar name..."

eric...you do consider yourself a truthful person, don't you?

Wee One, when someone tells me he is a syndicated columnist, I look in newspapers and magazines. That is what the term generally means. Puff pieces in a Right Wing opinion rag don't count. Except for that sort of thing, Murdock is practically unpublished. He appears have been a lap dog of white reactionaries since being weaned. Hardly evidence of me being dim. Nor is it my fault that his Mama couldn't spell, or, that you are so small. Now run off and hide under your bed.

Greetings, Curt. Good point. I can think of three myself.

Steve (Boom), it has been quite a day. Eric's example of a person who represents African-American political thought is amusing, though. Allegations of Marxism in the U.S. Advocacy of a flat tax. Love of any white person who bears a passing resemblance to Simon Legree. Yup. That's where the brothers and sisters are coming from alright. I wonder where De[l]roy's family kept the inherited family wealth he is so intent on protecting from taxation -- in a hole under the straw mat in the slave cabin? At least when I took Family Wealth in law school, I knew it had nothing to do with me, personally.

Ah yes, like all the work in papers and magazines attributed to Mac Diva. Ta-ta anonymous troll!

i dont want to say anything at all, because im scared that somehow someone will become offended and declare me a racist...
i like poop
is there anything in that which u can make into a rascial statement?

You forgot books.

Enjoy the dust bunnies under your bed, Wee One.

Hi Mac Diva, I don't want to get in between anything between you and Eric. Both of you have been very good to me. I don't know Deroy's history, nor do I care to, I just wanted to comment on the values of liberalism that he supports as reasoning to be conservative.

I did enjoy seeing your discussion on the BBC awhile back, don't know if I ever mentioned it.

Oh, Eric is just being himself. He posted this entry without doing any research. Relied on a press release from Project 21. I've written about a half-dozen pieces on Project 21 over a two-year period. I know as much about it as just about anyone does. But, that won't do. The disc jockey must be right -- even when he is wrong. This is just like his blunder with saying Kerry is too patrician to know what 'got your back' means. (Which incidentally, I did not participate in because enough people were correcting Eric already, and, I don't believe in piling on.) Anyway, the bottom line is that Project 21 is a phony 'black' political opinion group run by white conservatives. You will not find any body more out of touch with African-American political opinion.

The Log Cabin Republicans on the other hand, though opportunistic, are at least real.

Well, come to think of it I did see a book about folks that never amount to much that create elaborate imaginary personas for themselves to compensate for the fact. Is that your biography?

Something else amusing from Project 21. Prior to the election, they sent out press releases saying, in advance, claims of suppression of African-American voters were false.

An intro from Angie Winters:

First, the African American conservative group Project 21, is inserting themselves into the Florida Bad MoJo Mix. The group is suggesting that the claims of voter suppression are not valid. This is suspect, considering the many different groups who are making the claims and the fact that Florida's own government has admitted to making 'errors' in the process.

I thought it was cool that Mr Murdock took the time to visit this site and explain what his 'take' on Projct 21 was. I am not saying the rest of you are not entitled to your opinions but it sometime helps to get the facts directly from the 'horse's mouth'. This fellow clearly stated why he belongs to the group and what he thought the group's mission was. Much of what he said directly refuted several bloggers statements. As a reader who is interested in learning more about Eric's Blog, I felt Mr Murdock did a service and not a disservice to the readers at this site.

curt, I was referring to Blogcritics members, which you are not. We ban spammers, comment policy violators, malefactors, etc., on a regular basis. But you knew that.

Mac, your triumphalism is as unseemly as it is unearned. You can attempt to debunk Project 21 all you want and it will make zero difference to the fact that not all African-Americans share your political beliefs, and they are no less legitimate, authentically black, REAL, or intelligent than you are. Your convoluted attempts to prove otherwise are disingenuous, solipsistic, and vomitous.

Your endless personal attacks and outrageous rudeness to one and all who dare disagree with you, ever, on anything, is near the top of the list of your least appealing qualities. If you ever hope to convince anyone of anything who doesn't already agree with you, you might consider your methods; but I hold out hope for such an epiphany similar to that of experiencing the rapture in my lifetime.

Regarding your drooling blather about my Kerry speech story: I am never afraid to express spur-of-the-moment theories, impressions, concepts or ideas, and then to retract them if they prove incorrect. It's called "original thinking" and original thinking is often proved incorrect - no shame there. I am certain you didn't "pile on" because I updated the post with responses I got privately via email and concluded that the my "Kerry doesn't know what the term means" theory was likely incorrect very shortly after I published it.

Other aspects of my analysis of why Kerry lost hold up very well and I stand by them. But you know all of this because you know everything.

thanks Peter, I agree

Boom, thanks, your intelligent, informed and reasonable presence is always appreciated

"I have generous lips. If someone were to caricature me and not make my lips delectable, I would wonder what was wrong with the cartoonist."

Oh, PLEASE post a pic, MD, so that we may judge your appraisal...

Deroy Murdock is a wonderful human being, and a masterful writer. MD's vile attacks on him demean not him, but both her, and this site.

How much longer will this shit be put up with? Because it ain't gonna just go away on its own...

"Wee One, when someone tells me he is a syndicated columnist, I look in newspapers and magazines. That is what the term generally means. Puff pieces in a Right Wing opinion rag don't count. Except for that sort of thing, Murdock is practically unpublished. He appears have been a lap dog of white reactionaries since being weaned. Hardly evidence of me being dim. Nor is it my fault that his Mama couldn't spell, or, that you are so small. Now run off and hide under your bed."

Unbelievable. MD is caught screwing up Mr. Murdock's name, and instead of issuing a retraction, she demeans andy.

This is why people call you names, MD. Because you DESERVE it...

Err...

You just put up three consectutive comments. Is that because no one is responding to you? Do you need someone to talk to?

right again RJ, as I said the triumphalism is wholly unearned

"You forgot books."

Name *one* you've written that actually got published...

I take that back.

RJ,

Maybe she deserves to be called a name and maybe she doesn't. I think the point we all need to bear in mind is that name-calling detracts from the argument or debate. You see, we are suppose to be discussing the merits of the blog and not the personal short-comings of the person. Myaybe she made a mistake and maybe she didn't. Still two wrongs don't make it right. Kindly refrain from name calling and stick to the points of the debate.

I suppose I will get blasted for what I am about to say but here goes anyway....Ms Diva, you are a enormusously bright individual and I will concede that you are much brighter than me...especially in the area of constitutional law. And although I may not be as bright I still have an valid opinion. The purpose of such a site is to share 'different' opinion and perhaps educated another thru what you write. We are all on equal footing in this regard. I mean, each opinion is to be valued equally among the readers. As I have already stated, you are a gifted person, however what the mighty Mac giveth she most certainly taketh away! In almost all of your post, you state your arguments (sometimes very eloquently) and end your post with some sort of demeaning comment against your detractors. JUst my opinion but I think you would carry the day in more argument/debates if you just refrained from sharing some of the hurtful comments and stuck to the well reasoned points we all know you are capable.

Peter

PS. The discussion about your lips gets me hot!

Peter, an excellent demonstration of the technique I was suggesting, but not holding my breath to see enacted by said party, in #70.

I refuse to not believe in miracles

Anyone who takes Mac Diva and P6 seriously and wastes time trying to reason with them deserves the ignorant and ridiculous charges they throw. If you don't follow their line of what it is to be black, deafness falls. End of story. Please don't waste good brain cells on this sort.

Mr. Murdock, thanks for coming onto the board, but what you have to say will be mocked regardless. Best wishes to you.

thanks Newman, I try to take everyone seriously

Newman:

What charge did I throw? Where have I made a statement about what it means to be Black?

Please, don't misrepresent me because the conversation has you riled.

Peter, you are an incredibly naive person. What Leroy, Delroy, or McCoy proved, if anything, is that what we've said about Project 21 is true. He came in here, did a little puppet dance, saying nothing of substance on any topic.

• He acknowledged that the group is white-controlled and always has been.

•He did not refute the funding from far Right or the support of ludicrous causes dear only in the hearts and minds of white reactionaries.

•Only two of the board of directors of the three front groups they work behind are black. No contradiction there either.

•He did not refute that the connections back to eugenics, the anti-environmentalism movement and the flat tax movement are solid.

I would hate to see you on a jury, Peter. You are the kind of person who would think a very bad witness was telling the truth because he was wearing a nice suit. Deroy Murdock is a token opinion writer for a few Right Wing rags. The views he expresses over and over again are mimicries of the most extremist of white reactionaries. That is why he will remain the lawn jockey of such sites.

As for Eric Olsen's complete meltdown on this thread, if anyone has any doubts this person is not concerned about a woman of color being treated with respect -- the supposed basis for why he wrote the entry -- all that person needs to do is review the abuse he has directed at me.

As for his Eric Olsen's latest slur, saying I am "drooling," implying idiocy, let's look at it closely. I know I am one of the brightest, best writers ever to set foot in the out house Blogcritics often is. His response to that is try to convince people I am stupid. (A word often used in the emails I receive from other people referring to Olsen himself, by the way). Olsen has a problem with bright people, period. That is probably because he knows he is of very modest ability himself, but cannot accept it. Instead, lawyers are not lawyers, writers are not writers, film makers are not film makers, but, a disc jockey is . . . God! In his imagination. He regularly clashes with the bright white male contributors to the site. Some of them avoid participating in comments for that reason. I particularly set him off because he thinks he is superior to me based on race and gender. Having known plenty of men with small ability and big egos, that does not surprise me.

The reason I have taken time to refute someone who will never be able to hold a conversation about this, or most topics, on a level of informed discourse, is that I will not sit still and let disinformation be spread about civil rights topics.

But, since I am a generous person, let me restate my adversary's points in closing my rebuttal:

•Condoleezza Rice should not be referred to in ways thar reference her gender and race because it is insulting to do so.

•A woman of color who has been one of the best contributors to Blogcritics should be referred to in ways thar reference her gender and race because it is not insulting to do so. Among terms, Olsen and his companions have used are 'cunt,' 'whore,' 'bitch,' 'dimwit,' and 'drooling.'

I rest my case.

I agree: this thread speaks for itself

Miguel Estrada was also the victim of this kind of racism. The Democratic memos said he was very dangerous because he had no record and was Hispanic, and "we don't want to make another mistake like Clarence Thomas." If a Republican had said something like that about a black Democrat -- "we don't want to make another mistake like Thurgood Marshall" -- the Jesse Jacksons of this world would be shrill with fury and the mainstream media would be up in arms.

The subject was racism toward Condi Rice, not Project 21. Not Delroy Murdock. Not other writers on Blogcritics.

"I find it fascinating that some blacks aren't defended by the civil rights establishment or other advocacy groups if they do not happen to hew to a designated set of political positions, as if taking political positions outside of this designated dogma somehow renders them fair game for racism."---Eric Olsen

True? False? Discuss.

The very idea of condemning blacks who do not see liberal policies as "enlightened" as suffering from "false-consciousness" is, I think, Orwellian. Liberals claim to be defenders of freedom but seek to have everyone accept their definition of self-interest? And anyone who doesn't see their self-interest as being synonymous with the party is a class traitor? This is not only Orwellian, it's patently Stalinist.

The the people over at the NAACP wonder why President George W. Bush has no time for them. By their own actions and inactions, they have made themselves irrelevant.

It seems obvious. The liberal monopolization of minorities is predicated on the myth that white racism is responsible for any and every negative circumstance that befalls minorities. The attainment of positions of power by unabashedly conservative minorities like Dr. Rice, dispells that myth. Ugliness ensues.

People who oppose Rice's ascent to State have no problem with racist charicatures used against her precisely because they oppose her politics. One shouldn't expect partisan stooges like Kweise Mfume to come to her defense, either. As to Project 21, it's a small organization that has very little voice within the larger black community.

Rice is an exception to the larger Stalinism that characterizes black politics. Her convictions are a denial of black America's Soviet style politics and a refusal to accept the General Line of black liberalism. If they could, black liberals would Leon Trotsky the woman, airbrushing her from history.
When black liberals condemn Project 21, for instance, they do so because Project 21 deviates from the General Line. The fact that P21 has white members and gets money from corporations is only an excuse.

One of the greatest lies that has been peddled by black liberals and the black intelligentsia is that the black community is politically diverse. Of course, in reality, to understand the black leadership today, one should look at Soviet Politics of, say, the 1930's. Naturally, the Blood Purges are only metaphorical, but the intent remains: people like Condi Rice are simply not tolerated by both the Inner Party and the Outer Party. The notion of an "enlightened self-interest" within the black community is a laughable falsehood designed to mask conformity on the part of the "broad masses" with the black leadership. It would be in the "enlightened self-interest" of black Americans to put their vote up to the highest bidder. However, the notion that the Democratic Party (the same party that controlled a series of one party regimes in the American south that practiced state terrorism against black citizens up to 1964, at least) is the sole agent for black progress is an essential ingredient to the national success of white Democrats. As such, lip service is allowed to be paid by black Democrats to the notion that the larger white party must be held to account, but serious deviationism is never tolerated by the larger party.

Right deviationism from the General Line cannot be allowed. Stalin understood this; today's "black leaders" understand this as well. Conservatives, black or white, should quite whining about these manifestations of intellectual laziness and moral corruption on the part of white liberals and their intellectual toadies in the black community and be about the business of fostering a conservative insurgency within the larger black society. As long as the stooges for the power structure that controls the Democratic Party lead the black community, no change will come to that community politically. They will continue to be marginalized by both major parties.

Condoleezza Rice will be attacked because she is conservative, Republican, and believes in the values of free markets at home and unrelenting war against Islamic Fascism abroad. She's a big girl, and her critics will find that she can take care of herself. Besides, she and other black conservatives represent the future of black politics in America. While a vast majority of young black voters went to Kerry this year, just as many were willing to entertain the idea of a more independent politics. As a Republican, one cannot ask for too much at one time. However, it is helpful to recall Lenin's short explanation of the NEP: "Two steps forward, one step back."

Powell and Rice have transgressed by stepping outside of some imaginary box - a construct of the liberal mindset that allows them to classify "good" blacks and "bad" blacks. Both Powell and Rice are intelligent, hardworking, likeable individuals and both are very successful. So what's inside the box?

Rice and Powell -- likeable? Oh my God! Successful? By whose definition? Intelligent? According to what curriculum?

Rice and Powell are ... Let's just say they need infinite prayers. This has nothing to do with their melanin levels and everything to do with their willingness to go along with violent, greedy policies. Those who toss pigmentationist slurs at them -- including Belafonte -- are bigoted, fascist-minded fools who have missed the point. Who cares what they look like? The fruits of their horrible labors endanger the entire planet and ultimately will poison ALL humankind. Powell and Rice -- just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et all -- have done unspeakable things, have endorsed and allowed unforgiveable actions, and have earned blood-stained hands. All of them should be judged for their crimes against humanity equally, as they are all equal in the eyes of the Creator and in the eyes of anyone with sense.

Mac Diva wrote:"Eighty-eight percent of people who voted for Bush are white."

Given that 80% of the population is "exclusively white" according to the census bureau, this means that he got a pretty good chunk of minority votes.

"I know I am one of the brightest, best writers ever to set foot in the out house Blogcritics often is."

RETCH

"Rice and Powell -- likeable? Oh my God!"

Read the latest polls. Most Americans like both of them, especially Powell.

"Successful? By whose definition?"

Uh, by the definition that, if you make it into a US President's cabinet, you've pretty much fucking made it in life?

"Intelligent? According to what curriculum?"

One suspects that they are more intelligent than about 90% of humanity. Otherwise, they would not have risen to such high positions of power.

"in the eyes of anyone with sense"

IOW: Pacifists like me...

Deroy Murdock:

You're not getting paid?! Then you my friend are a slave. A slave to the modern day plantation owners at Project 21.

Oh, you are getting paid? Then you my friend are a sellout and your politics are not sincere.

How about this:

Deroy Murdock is a free thinker. He supports those who he agrees with.

GASP! Could it be? A black man who is his own person, rather than a cog in the wheel of the NAACP?

The Horror!

This is one of those issues that is being settled as we speak. The most important thing, whether the Democrats like it or not, is that we have a black Secretary of State (and she achieved this office as a Republican).

The Republicans are picking up votes from all minority groups, including African Americans, and there does seem to be a cultural shift here that makes me wonder whether the so called rednecks of the red states haven't been paying more attention to the reality of racial equality in the United States than the Party that is fixated on hyping and wallowing in victim politics.

What one senses about the Democrats (and beware, it can happen to any political party) is a certain desperation that is causing them to be offensive to everyone - to patronise blacks over this issue, for example, and so further alienate this constituency.

In case they've forgotten, the Dems need to represent policies that a majority of the American people will support. The Dems are acting like Americas blacks are still picking cotton in Georgia.

If RIce and Powel had been in Clinton's cabinet( you know the one that 'Looked like America') and these same charactures had been used, We would see Jesse et al rise up in total indignation! How DARE those evil, racists make fun of the beautiful, natural features of a proud child of Africa. Who raised themselves out of poverty while struggled with racism to attain offices that no Republican would have EVER allowed them to achieve.

But, since it is Republican, they get to be smeared and will damn well LIKE IT!
I dont know who these Project 21 people are, it does not matter.

What we're observing is that racism is defined, subconsciously, as only applying to those who haven't much succeeded in life. A successful person is expected to take it as part of the territory. Bad words no power over such a person, such that no protection is required.

dwshelf:

You're precisely right.

You know, it's "racist" to not support Dr. Rice because she's a Republican...

Wait a minute...being Republican has nothing to do with race. Let me start again.

You know, it's racist to oppose Dr. Rice because you disagree strongly with he opinion...

Wait a minute. Her opinion has nothing to do with race...

I got it!

If you're Black, the only reason you can oppose Dr. Rice is because they are Black and Republican!

What small-minded...

But please, continue with the delusions that make you comfortable.

I am very pleased to see the train of thought return to my original focus, which was the blatant racism with which Powell and Rice have been attacked by "liberals" and why racism expressed against black conservatives (and moderates) is somehow different or excusable to the civil rights establishment.

Although I very much disagree with Natalie's assessment of the individuals involved, she does see the issue for what it is: individuals being attacked for who they are and what they believe, not what they do.

And the proper response to this:

Powell and Rice have transgressed by stepping outside of some imaginary box - a construct of the liberal mindset that allows them to classify "good" blacks and "bad" blacks.

It would be in the "enlightened self-interest" of black Americans to put their vote up to the highest bidder.

However, the notion that the Democratic Party (the same party that controlled a series of one party regimes in the American south that practiced state terrorism against black citizens up to 1964, at least)

is the sole agent for black progress is an essential ingredient to the national success of white Democrats.

As such, lip service is allowed to be paid by black Democrats to the notion that the larger white party must be held to account, but serious deviationism is never tolerated by the larger party.

p6, I suppose Condoleezza Rice has no problem if someone doesn't "support" her, regardless of how they come to that position.

Now surely expressing such disapproval in disparaging racial terms communicates that the speaker is incapable of constructing a coherent statement of disapproval.

The question regards a lack of defense by the usual crowd. My observation is that people who succeed in life don't get much sympathy regarding being the target of bad words. Pretty well independent of race.

There may well be a political factor, as observed by Eric Olson, but this doesn't explain the entire phenomenom.

Eric:

Two things

why racism expressed against black conservatives (and moderates) is somehow different or excusable to the civil rights establishment.

dwshelf:

Now surely expressing such disapproval in disparaging racial terms communicates that the speaker is incapable of constructing a coherent statement of disapproval.

I just realized, I should have put a

Mac Diva,

You really need to check into your sources. After all, Margaret Sanger is one of the patron saints of the liberals and she without a doubt was totally in favor of eugenics. In fact, eugenics was one of her prime reasons for supporting abortion on demand.

What you are doing is trying to obfuscate the whole point of the conservative black organization. After all, George Soros tried to bring down the British monetary system. Does that mean that the Democratic party and the organizations George Soros supported are trying to bring down the British monetary system? The same logic applies as to your point.

P6, I am calling Powell a moderate, because all in all he is.

And I am referring to the incidents cited above, although I am very pleased to hear the NAACP has condemned the Sylvester speech and he has apologized.

I am calling Powell a moderate

And I am referring to the incidents cited above, although I am very pleased to hear the NAACP has condemned the Sylvester speech and he has apologized.

http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/GOP-CHESS.gif

I find it interesting that white conservatives have taken it upon themselves to "educate" African-Americans about what they should consider "racist."
I laugh at them, of course. There is big money to be made in the "Tommin'" industry, and if you want to crack the big time as a minority in talk radio, cable news, or editorials, self-flaggelation is the way to go! Look at JC Watts? Tom Delay's GOP Congress' glass ceiling kept him in the number 4 slot with no prayer of advancing, so he quit. But he remains loyal to the GOP in books and television appearences, well...because he can sell more books and get more television appearances.
In my view, Condi Rice is just another elitist, self-centered bourgeosie. Nothing to celebrate there.

--Cobra

Natalie,

"The fruits of their horrible labors endanger the entire planet and ultimately will poison ALL humankind. Powell and Rice -- just like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et all -- have done unspeakable things, have endorsed and allowed unforgiveable actions, and have earned blood-stained hands..."


So we should have waited to share these "sins" with the UN perhaps, who were engaged in great "sins" of their own, starving those poor Iraqi children with their doomed sanctions while even making a few bucks on the side. Hands become blood-stained in both the commission of "violence acts" and sitting on your hands while violence prevails around you. If you're going to play the self-righteous hipster there can be no meaningful discussion. I see a sliding scale of righteous indignation tipped irrevocably away from Bush and company merely for the political loss they represent. The world will go on, not in spite of, but especially with "evil" people such as Bush, Rice, Powell and others doing the dirty work needed toward a long-term greater good

I see a sliding scale of righteous indignation tipped irrevocably away from Bush and company merely for the political loss they represent.

http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/recruitment-posterNAT.gif

Dorian,

There's some good reading material on how much Halliburton under Dick Cheney made on the UN Oil for Food program here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm
And if you think that is some "lefty screed site", try this one:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

Now as far as "greater good" is concerned, exactly who is going to benefit from this Iraq War fiasco? Not the tens of thousands(some estimates over 100,000) dead Iraqis. Certainly not the devastated Iraqi families of UNCOUNTED WOUNDED and maimed. Certainly not our THOUSANDS of CASUALTIES in our own millitary, some of whom were earning less than Walmart door greeters.
Exactly who, besides the multinational corporations poised to rape Iraq through neo-con economic colonialism is thankful for this disaster?
Condi Rice, who is the first Secretary of State to have an Oil Tanker named after her, has sure seen her fortunes rise. Hell, maybe if another terrorist attack had occured on her watch, she might have surplanted Cheney as V.P. on the ticket.

--Cobra

Sorry about the digression but here goes.

Halliburton is a straw man. Mr. Cheney is the Vice President of the United States not the CEO of Halliburton. He cannot profit from Halliburton success unless your willing (and I'm sure you are) to make him out a greater villain than he is for simply having been a CEO. If Halliburton is involved in an inordinate amount of government business its because it has the experience and size needed to get to job done properly, and as with any large company it has its share of internal problems.

The war in Iraq cannot be viewed in terms of the casualties only (and the jury is still out on the actual numbers although 100,000 is an excessive number). If you want to do a tit-for-tat comparison however consider that the regime plus the sanctions were killing people at a rate greater than the collation collateral deaths. Now the regime no longer exists and the coalition forces will eventually be gone. Most of those dying in Iraq now are insurgents (a.k.a terrorists). Iraq is in the process of being transformed from a major destabilizing influence in the Mid East to a stabilizing force. Don't even get me started about the WMDs. If the intelligence said they were there then we had to act on the available intelligence. Even the liberal idol Clinton said he would have done the same thing as Bush given the circumstances. Altogether we've probably saved millions of lives, long-term, in the Middle East. At the same time other barbarous dictatorships are taking notice that the U.S. no longer tolerates tyrants taking refuge in diplomatic frivolity and impotence.

We're talking editorial cartoons here, fer chrissake. Can't we get a grip? Don't we have enough issues without making up new ones?

I think it's commendable to ridicule bad arguments regardless of the medium where they are published.

A cartoonist who focuses on a racial feature to make a political point is highly likely to be making a ridiculous argument.

But I'll say it again: it says something negative about the cartoonist. The target can choose to leave it go at that. Or to ridicule the argument. There's no requirement to silence the dolts of life. Going off like a roman candle says "I announce that this argument has power over me".

I suspect neither Rice nor Powell feel any such power. For what it's worth p6, I also doubt you feel such power, so I'm not going to feel sorry for you either.

A cartoonist who focuses on a racial feature to make a political point is highly likely to be making a ridiculous argument.

This is one of the most offensive threads I've read here. "Handkerchief heads"? WTF?

Eric:
Don't delete any of it- leave the trail. Since MD is throwing a fit because you didn't source HER, having more things to source is always good for the full, hateful picture.

p6, well, so I had to go check out the cartoons for myself.

Maybe we agree.

I hope everyone would be able to survive this kind of argument. They were weak arguments. They each did contain a low blow which would never see the light of day if the target were liberal.

But it's a gnat attack. We're discussing powerful people here. People wno don't need pity or protection.

I'm sure you didn't hear it here first, but Condoleezza Rice has an excellent chance to be the first woman president. Elections are won in the middle. Rice would have a far greater center crossover than she would have a defection on the right. Far greater. Contrast to Hillary.

I had to go check out the cartoons for myself.

Maybe we agree.

Condoleezza Rice has an excellent chance to be the first woman president.

You people are DELUSIONAL. Condi Rice...President???!? Exactly which social group is going to run out and vote for Condi Rice? She'd NEVER get out of the primaries. White conservative males have NEVER consciously chose to put a minority in the ultimate leadership position, much less a minority female. If you disagree, please cite me an historical example. Hell, Rush Limbaugh lost his mind over a black QUARTERBACK. We're talking the President of the United States. The only reason white conservatives are cooking up Rice right now is because she is obediant, and in lock step with the Bush, as opposed to Colin Powell, who openly disagreed with Bush and his neo-con kabal in the Iraq War and on Affirmative Action. If she pulled a Powell and went leaking quotes to Bob Woodward, or outing the Iranian Nuke missile program without the Presidential nod, Kristol, Krauthammer, Fox News and Limbaugh would have her out to the woodshed the next day. And if you don't believe me, find me a FLATTERING right winged article about Powell in the past two months.

Dorian,

Dick Cheney DID PROFIT ALREADY. It's PAST TENSE. Dick Cheney was in bed with Saddam Hussein and, oh my...the FRENCH, through subsidiaries during his tenure as CEO. To me...that's FAR worse than Whitewater, but I know it's IMPOSSIBLE for some conservatives to hold their heroes to any reasonable behavioral standards. And if you think that Iraq is "stable" or will be stable in the near future, that ain't just kool-aid you're drinking.

Now as far as this thread's love affair with black "conservatives" goes,
have I got a good group for you:

They promote family values, and are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. They believe in discipline, personal accountabillity and attonement, as well as entreprenuership. They are against the feminist movement, drug and alcohol use, fornication, interracial marriage,(a big plus in those Southern red states) and believe that God and moral values should be the central factor in one's life.
You right wingers should be running and embracing these folks...but you won't, because I've just described the Nation of Islam--black conservatives who have NO AFFILIATION, DEBT or SERVICE to rich white right winged overlords.

So don't give me this NONSENSE about you folks lovin' "black conservatives." This is one African-American from the MAJORITY who thinks you're all hilarious.

--Cobra

"Give me an example of racism expressed against Black conservatives that has not been rejected by the civil rights establishment."

Uh, have you read the post that leads to this comments section?

"Give me an example of racism expressed against moderate Black folks (because I think you threw that in there rather gratuitously)."

Uh, Colin Powell is a moderate. And he's been accused of being Bush's "house slave"...

They promote family values, and are vehemently opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality. They believe in discipline, personal accountabillity and attonement, as well as entreprenuership. They are against the feminist movement, drug and alcohol use, fornication, interracial marriage,(a big plus in those Southern red states) and believe that God and moral values should be the central factor in one's life.
You right wingers should be running and embracing these folks...but you won't, because I've just described the Nation of Islam

"Look at JC Watts? Tom Delay's GOP Congress' glass ceiling kept him in the number 4 slot with no prayer of advancing, so he quit."

He rose to the number four spot like a rocket. And he left Congress shortly thereafter.

I don't remember him ever suggesting that he left public office because he couldn't ever rise higher. Cite?

P6 - it's not just the way Rice is portrayed in those political cartoons. It's the message that goes along with it. Using terms like "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Tom" and "house nigga" are racist! Period end of sentence. If someone used them to describe you, tell me you would not be offended?

And the fact that those terms have been used to describe Rice and Powell is racist. and the fact that NO civil rights groups jumped up and defended both of them is wrong. Granted they have since this thread started. But this thread started long after these attacks started. Both Rice and Powell have been attacked by liberal media for years.

Politics should have nothing at all to do with the argument.

And the fact that those terms have been used to describe Rice and Powell is racist. and the fact that NO civil rights groups jumped up and defended both of them is wrong.

Granted they have since this thread started. But this thread started long after these attacks started.

Both Rice and Powell have been attacked by liberal media for years.

"If white Conservatives are concerned about white people saying bad things about Black Conservatives, I say it is on white Conservatives to do something about it. NOT Black folks, nor our institutions."

This, frankly, makes no sense.

It's not "bad things" some people have said about Ms. Rice or Mr. Powell (both of whom are black). It's ANTI-BLACK things.

And any group that claims to be pro-black should denounce such racist attacks. This is NOT an ideological issue.

people seem to forget that 80% of black people in america vote democratic. an overwhelming majority of minorities of americans do the same. when people bad mouth leftists, they always seem to assume that they're talking about urban, agnostic (or worse) white socialists. the truth is, the democratic party is multi-ethnic. when people call the left racist or anti-semetic, they are speaking about 80% of the jewish population, 80% of the black population, at least 60% of the hispanic population, the majority of women in this country. that's a lot of folks to make silly assumptions about. the truth is, the democratic party is a minority party made up of our country's citizen minorities. sure there are some fools i