Home / Culture and Society / The Grand Old Party of Racism

The Grand Old Party of Racism

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Once upon a time, there was the party of Lincoln. It was devoted to the idea of emancipation and 40 acres and a mule. Over the last 150 years, how times have changed. Today, in order to secure their electoral base, the Republican party has lowered itself to the lowest common denominator of its rabid base. It has become the Grand Old Party of racism.

Since the Southern strategy became the bread and butter of Republican electoral politics, a key shift happened in the party. As new (more Southern) elements gained power in the party, racism began rearing its ugly head from time to time. The most toxic of these outbreaks was the Louisiana politician, David Duke. A former Grand Wizard of the KKK, he ran semi-successful candidacies for the House (1989), the Senate (1990), governor of Louisiana (1991) and president (1992). While much of the national party repudiated Duke’s racism, his ability to collect votes in Louisiana pointed to a demographic and a fact just beneath the surface of the Republican Party.  At the heart of the base (especially in Southern states) people with predominantly racist beliefs form the core of the party that Republicans rely on to get elected.

In recent years, the American electorate has basically broken itself down into thirds. About 25% of the electorate is liberal/progressive and about 35% of the electorate identifies as hard-core Republican/conservative. The remaining 40% or so occupy the mushy middle of non-ideologues, independents, libertarians, greens, and others. 40% might seem high, but that mushy middle has a tendency not to come out to vote. They are notoriously unpredictable. For much of the 1980s and 1990s, Republican electoral strategy was pretty simple. To win elections all you had to do was get out your base, and focus on enough single, hot-button social issues to swing key constituencies who might be found in that mushy middle. For example, you might go for the Catholic vote by focusing on abortion. Additionally, Republican strategists also tended to focus on negative advertising as a means of voter suppression. If middle-of-the-road voters were not breaking your candidate’s way, you could always swing enough mud to turn those voters (who were not very likely to vote anyway) off. Meanwhile, Democrats would have to both excite their base and manage to pull enough of those 40% to get a plurality.

While favorable for many years, the demographics began to slip away from Republicans after 2000. Primarily in Southern states, Hispanics have become the new force to deal with in politics as the Hispanic population in the U.S. has soared.

Enter Karl Rove. Rove’s strategy was quite smart. He took into account the growing Hispanic nature of the electorate and chose to directly address them in Bush’s 2000 campaign. His improved slice of the Hispanic pie (35%) was just enough to help push him over the top in several key states in 2000, especially Florida. In 2004, Bush did even better with national security dominating the campaign. That year, Bush managed to get around 44% of the vote. But then, the bottom dropped out for Republicans with the Hispanic community. What happened?

The answer to that question is simple. In June of 2007, Bush’s Immigration bill, which would have established a path to citizenship for up to 12 million illegal aliens in the country, went down to ignominious defeat, largely at the hands of conservatives in his own party. Key conservative senators, such as Jim DeMint (R-SC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) led the charge. Bush’s “Big Tent” had been scorched just in time for the 2008 elections. When all the dust had settled on the McCain campaign, he managed to receive only 31% of the Hispanic vote. Obama was able to pull together a powerful coalition of minorities, liberals, and people in the middle who simply wanted a change in the country’s direction. Obama easily won election as he managed to flip key states like Florida, North Carolina and Virginia from red to blue. However, in massive defeat, the Republican party didn’t change course. Instead, Republicans at the state level got involved in the process and Arizona passed a “show me your papers” immigration bill that pushed even more Hispanics into the D column. The Republicans were facing electoral apocalypse. So, what to do?

Unfortunately for them, the solution will most likely be their undoing. Since 2008, Republican party strategy has shifted to give the nativist, “know-nothing,” bigoted wing of the Republican party exactly what they want. In primary after primary, they have pushed the extremist candidates of choice. Rebranded as the Tea Party movement and endowed by the wealthy supporters of Republican think tanks, they have systematically purged the Republican party of any moderation. In 2010, the new Republican strategy became clear. First, your base must over-perform in the polls. You do this by giving them red meat in the form of concessions and an enemy in the form of President Obama (more on this later). Second, you take advantage of a ruling (Citizens United) by your bought-and-paid-for Supreme Court that allows corporations to dump unlimited money on campaigns. You use that advantage to suppress Democratic votes in any way possible, be that hiring thugs to scream at town hall meetings, or massive negative campaign buys. The result was rather predictable: in an off-year election (2010), when moderates are less likely to vote, the Republicans managed to gain control of Congress. The trouble is that now their strategy is locked in for 2012.

In 2012, no Republican who significantly disagrees with the base will come close to being nominated. What’s worse, the concert of racism that was once conducted with dog whistles is now out in the open. It is slowly exposing itself as the racist strategy that it is. Since 2008, Republicans at all levels have used the Obama birth certificate as a code word for race. It gave birth (pardon the pun) to the weaselly argument of, “I take him at his word, but people have raised questions.” Time and time again we heard this talking point from the Republican leadership. Tea Party leaders, like Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), were even more open with their doubts about what President Obama was trying to hide.

Enter Donald Trump. Over the last month, Mr. Trump has managed to stir up huge free publicity on this non-issue to help put forward the central idea of his non-campaign for president. When not challenging the president’s nationality, Trump has been busy touting his, “great relationship with the blacks.” Trump’s constant verbal diarrhea merely reveals what has been there all along: the attacks on President Obama and his birth certificate were always about race.

While you might dismiss Trump as a “barker” for the Tea Party sideshow as President Obama so eloquently described the situation, the Grand Old Party of racism just keeps rolling along. State by state, the Koch Brothers, ALEC and other groups have been systematically pushing their racist agenda. Across the nation (Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina and other states) Republican legislatures have all put forward curiously similar bills, all designed to make it harder to vote. For example, in Florida, those most likely to move by demographic are the poor and minorities. The bill would make it much more difficult for registration groups to work with these individuals, even leaving non-partisan groups like the League of Women Voters thinking they will have to suspend voter drives under the threat of fines. With more people voting provisional ballots (of which only 48% were counted across the country in last fall’s election), voter suppression is a certainty as voters forgo the long lines created by the shortening of early voting.

In Oklahoma, the mask has completely fallen off and Republican legislators seem to be empowered these days to say exactly how they feel. Upon the passing of legislation to put Affirmative Action up to a vote by the electorate, Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) decided to let it all hang out.  In an interview with the Tulsa World she said, “Minorities earn less than white people because they don’t work as hard and have less initiative.” She went on to add that, “We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”

The GOP needs to ask itself if they still want to be the party of Lincoln. Right now, they are looking an awful lot like the party of David Duke and ‘Bull’ Connor.

Powered by

About Jerald Cumbus

  • nala

    I’m from a visible minority in this country and I would like David Duke to rule… Why? I’m from a minority that is not allowed to exist according to the history books… A Palestinian! A Christian too. The real racists are people like you that love name calling.

  • Dan

    “then take a look at yourself. you may not see it, but your beliefs come off as racist, at least to me, and given the tenor of other commenters comments, to at least a few other people around here as well. i’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve heard it, and if you’d like it to be the last, you should think about it.”—zingzing

    Incredible, without ever achieving an even marginal success in persuasive logic or reason, your pavlovian attachment to your magic word blinds you to my sarcasm. Repeat it over and over and it will finally work.

    No, I’m not hurt by your name calling zingzing.

  • STM

    The best and most obvious political home for racists is the Nazi Party, or any number of ‘Aryan” and neo-nazi organisations.

    At least they don’t pretend to be anything they’re not.

    They won’t say one thing in private and another in public.

    It’s “we hate you, piss off”, not “Of course we’re not racist (we just not that keen on having one of them uppity black fellas in the White House).”

    What happened to down home good ol’ American hate??

    Stop nancying around and get right down to it!

    By the way, Obama hasn’t turned out to be the world’s greatest president. True, there was never going to be a pot of gold at the end of the pile of shit he inherited, but he didn’t exactly pick up the reins and go for it.

    Doubtless there are many racists in GOP (and doubtless among the liberals too) but could it be that many of the people being accused of being racist are simply bummed off at the way Obama hasn’t set the world on fire?

    The fact he’s black gives too many Dems a handy excuse to to throw in the race card whenever anyone criticises the president.

    That might say more about them than about anything else. Chardonnay socialists make plenty of moral-value judgments as well.

  • zingzing

    “It really hurts me though zing. I want you to know that.”

    then take a look at yourself. you may not see it, but your beliefs come off as racist, at least to me, and given the tenor of other commenters comments, to at least a few other people around here as well. i’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve heard it, and if you’d like it to be the last, you should think about it.

  • Dan

    My personal attack on you zing, was to say that Abraham Lincoln and I would both think the same thing of you and your viewpoint. And I think the work “pathological” was in there somewhere. Pretty mild actually, yours was uuuuugly.

    No I guess racist doesn’t count in the eyes of comment editor. It really hurts me though zing. I want you to know that.

    “Sounds like caucasian supremacism, but you’re still deliberately slippery and vague about it, which is not very courageous”

    Wouldn’t you call it “asian supremacism”? And it looks as though the scientific community is in on it. those racists.

  • zingzing

    and dan, the reason i got edited (#77) up there is because you laid out a personal attack against me (in #76), which i then responded to. they deleted your personal attack, then they deleted my response to said personal attack, which, i suppose, could have had a personal attack in it, although i doubt it. (that said, when you were edited, it said “[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor],” while when i was edited, it just said “[Edited].”)

    i just happened to notice… i wonder if you recall what your attack was. that would explain why i can’t remember laying out any personal attacks though. and i guess “racist” doesn’t count. which is good, because #96 is pretty much the biggest load of racist bullshit i’ve seen in a while.

  • Sounds like caucasian supremacism, but you’re still deliberately slippery and vague about it, which is not very courageous.

    This stuff about scapegoating and punishing whites is just paranoid horse manure. I’m white, and as far as I know so is zing. What we have an allergic reaction to is this obsessive focusing on perceived differences between races. People are people, and coming up with justification for hating is not cool, from anybody, of any color.

  • Dan

    “It certainly sounds like a political and polemical stance, rarin’ for a fight, not a cool, calm, rational philosophical position. But he is quite vague about it, so maybe he can spell it out.”—handyguy

    Sure handy, always happy to help. “Race realism” refers to those people who are not in denial about what mainstream science has to say about intelligence, as well as other human biodiverity factors that are most likely the real cause of the substandard educational, occupational, economic, and social outcomes of non Asian minorities.

    I would define “racially aware” as the awareness that these people have of the many ways society attempts to scapegoat, guilt, and punish whites for what are natural, normal, but unequal social, and economic outcomes.

    hope this helps.

  • Clavos

    Boeke #92:


  • Has Dan actually defined specifically what he means by “after I became racially aware”? What is the nature of this enlightenment? Would he grant that many, many people, not just zing and not just “leftists,” would find this “racially aware” state disturbing and/or bigoted?

    It certainly sounds like a political and polemical stance, rarin’ for a fight, not a cool, calm, rational philosophical position. But he is quite vague about it, so maybe he can spell it out.

  • zingzing

    ok, dan. but when i call someone a “race realist,” i really mean a “racist.” and at that point, it’s a derogatory term meant to mock your silliness.

    and the word “racist” has a simple definition. that’s a fact. and it’s logical to call you a racist if you fit the definition of the term, isn’t it?

    but if you want to be a race realist, you put on your silly cape and run around in it.

  • Boeke

    #90-Clavos: apparently you are accusing the dems of being equally opportunistic ; tu quoque.

  • Dan

    “and yes, i do consider it a “very negative thing to be.” but i don’t consider it a personal insult, just a statement of fact”—zing zing

    complete silliness. It is a deragatory term, intended as such. When you say that, you aren’t dealing with facts or logic. It is simply a childish outburst based on pure emotion.

    It is the same as calling a black person a “nigger”, then pretending “but i don’t consider it a personal insult, just a statement of fact.”

    “Race realist” is a more complimentary term. Understandably, you may not like that since you would disagree that my position is realistic. “White advocate” is an affirmative term and more accurately describes the ideas I present.

    Or, you could simply stop calling names and focus on reason and logical persuasion, something you’ve shown a very poor aptitude for so far.

  • Clavos

    And, although I realize you can’t resist showing off your newly acquired knowledge, #86 is not a tu quoque inasmuch as I’m not accusing the Dems of also harboring racists.

  • Clavos

    It is not required that someone provide a political home for racists.

    Did I say it was?

  • Boeke

    86-Clavos: tu quoque, again.

    It is not required that someone provide a political home for racists.

  • zingzing

    money is the great equalizer.

  • Clavos

    The republican party seems to have gladly embraced the racists that LBJ threw aside in the 1960s…

    Well, the Dems DID seduce all the people of color, so that was all that was left to them — that and the tycoons.

  • Boeke

    The republican party seems to have gladly embraced the racists that LBJ threw aside in the 1960s, although, IMO, George W. Bush was decidedly anti-racist.

  • zingzing

    and yes, i do consider it a “very negative thing to be.” but i don’t consider it a personal insult, just a statement of fact. you’re certainly not the worst racist i’ve come across on this website. that would be… richard… something or other. now that guy was a racist. horrible person. wish i could remember his name.

  • zingzing

    mhmm. you are what you is. it is my considered opinion, having read what you have to say, that you do indeed come off as racist. i’m giving you ample opportunity to prove otherwise, but it just keeps on coming out.

    maybe i did go over the line, i don’t recall. the comment in question was written at 2:57 am after a night out, so it’s reasonably possible that i was particularly free with my words.

    but if i get “special dispensation,” how is it that i was edited?

    i will note that other instances of me not having the kindest words for you have gone unedited, so i doubt it’s the “racist” thing. it must have been something else.

  • Dan

    ZZ, obviously your repeated name calling of “racist” is a personal attack. You certainly think it is a very negative thing to be. As I recall though, you get special dispensation around here because you’re supposed to be “edgy” or some such load.

  • zingzing

    sorry, dan. i think what i think, just as you think what you think. because we’re so far apart, you look like a racist welt upon the bared ass of america’s humanity.

    and just what was edited out up there? i don’t remember saying anything particularly over the line. is my opinion that dan’s a racist verboten around here?

  • Dan

    You’re a phony freethegop. Your and zingzings caricatures only exist in fevered “progressive” minds.

  • freethegop

    I don’t see what the big deal about “racism” is. Conservatives founded this country, got rid of the Indians, took the land , brought slaves over to make profit, and later created a very workable society where those people provided cheap labor or whatever and now keep generating profit by going to jail where they belong. America is built and based on making profit any way you can and to be free to do so without all of this other bs. Read your history. Why do we have to make excuses. The country has never been “fair” or “just” etc. So it’s just baloney to think that it needs to be now, in the future, or that we have to feel bad about “racism” or spend energy pretending it doesn’t exist. Who cares.

    Now’s the time to just claim our destiny and forget explaining ourselves to these losers, liberals, and parasites. Atlas Shrugged showed us the way. The rest of you, go ahead and call us racists. The fact is, you can’t do anything about it except throw sticks and stones at Conservative organizations and Conservatives. Like I said it was CONSERVATIVES that got the job done here.

  • Dan

    You don’t think you are inventing a caricature because you are in the grip of a debilitating emotional zealotry.

    Your words (and dishonesty) don’t soil me however much you would like them to. Anyone can read what you’ve written and what I’ve written, and as usual, I’m content to let that record speak for itself.

  • zingzing

    “So then, what did he “change”? Certainly not his race realist perspective.”

    he gradually recognized the evils and untenable nature of slavery. but his solution to ship them off is rather silly.


  • Dan

    “he was a man of his time, certainly. but as time wore on, he changed, as have the times.”–zingzing

    So then, what did he “change”? Certainly not his race realist perspective. Give it up zing. He doesn’t belong to you. [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    Irene, I didn’t intend to suggest that you should think or understand anything other than the way you do. Although, I guess it does read that way. I was thinking more from my experience, and how the problem you see with the Lincoln/Douglass relationship made more sense after I became racially aware.

    And I did notice you navigate zedds shifting definitions, and addendums to what constitutes racism. She’s gotta keep whitey on the hop you know.

    I doubt you would come to think Elizabeth Wright a neoconservative. She’s interesting foremost because she’s brilliant, but also because she articulates so accurately the perpetual state of race anxiety whites are forced to suffer because apparent racial inequalities absolutely must be the result of their wickedness.

    I could offer up pleasant personal experiences I’ve had with blacks and browns. Everyone can. I don’t do it because I shouldn’t have to. It’s a designed indignity that many whites feel required to perform a multicultural love dance to ward off accusations of “white supremacy”. Maybe that feels as awkward as you imagine Lincoln/Douglass to be?

    guess that’s all for now. Goodnight Irene

  • zingzing

    dan: “zingzing on the other hand is full of crap. Only through a most willful disregard of historical evidence could anyone construe that Lincoln championed racial equality.”

    and dan, you are obviously terrible at reading. incredibly bad. i wonder if you even bothered. that’s about the most insanely stupid reading of a sentence i’ve ever come across. incredible stuff. you got the exact opposite of what i said out of what i said. how do you do that?

    “I think he perceives my “protectiveness” mainly through reaction to his pathological trashing of things white.”

    god, white people… (that’s a joke, son, at your expense, you bucket.) you claim to be “racially conscious,” but it seems to mainly take the form of you bemoaning the blacks (and the immigrants, but mostly the blacks,) living in your white country and your white cities and fucking your white girls and taking your white jobs.

    i’m not anti-white. i’m anti-you, because you’re a white separatist at the best, and a white supremacist at the worst.

  • Thx Pablo,Handyguy and Dan, for aiding in me in my quest for All Things True, here and on other threads. Personally, I believe that a significant key to understanding the Osama mystery is the FACT that OBL keeps on being exhumed and revived so that others can experience the same phenomenon we’ve observed these last few days, the self-satisfied feeling that killing him all over again affords.

    Dan, I should think that, having observed the way I respond to Zedd’s semi-annual attempts at trying to make me feel guilty to be white, you would see that I have a very keen awareness of who I am, and I am not the least bit ashamed of it. HUGE fan of sunscreen, here. I have come to enjoy Zedd’s visits. It’s like she infuses me with a dose of Vitamin Z, and I feel like I can say whatever the heck I want in BC for a few days.

    I also appreciate unique things about the black race, and while I definitely am not AGAINST blacks and whites falling in love and marrying, I hope that blacks will be able to maintain their racial distinctiveness. Black Gospel music, case in point. With training from a black person, a white singer can maybe do a solo–but without a mostly black choir backing him or her up, the performance, I don’t know, pales in comparison to the traditional original.

    Now Dan, thanks for the link to the conservative black woman. As long as she is not a NEOCONSERVATIVE black woman, I might be able to be good friends with her. (We could be friends otherwise,but we would just have to avoid talking about politics.)

    I have not received an answer from ANYONE yet that explains how Frederick Douglass and Abe Lincoln could get along so well after the “I don’t think they should vote” remark–or explains it any better than I did when I said I thought maybe Douglass feigned shock as much as Lincoln feigned an attitude of mild superiority to blacks, for the sake of political expediency.

    Well, goodnight, or good morning.

  • Dan

    That last seems a little unlikely Irene, but I’m in. The Snoop seems like he’s on to something, and Zedd has a healthy racial consciousness, which is maybe one thing we have in common.

    zingzing on the other hand is full of crap. Only through a most willful disregard of historical evidence could anyone construe that Lincoln championed racial equality. The Emancipation Proclamation was linked to a plan to colonize freed blacks to many territories outside the US, and Lincoln appropriated funding and worked exhaustively to get it done.

    But zingzing intrigues when he says “i know dan is very protective of the white race, but he seems to think it very, very weak”.

    I think he perceives my “protectiveness” mainly through reaction to his pathological trashing of things white. But zing is the epitome of what he calls the “very, very weak” element of the white race. He’s a very completely deracinated specimen. Although he’s a popular and prolific contributor to BC.

    The repressed cognitive awareness that he suffers from is likely the same hurdle that prevents you from conceiving of a interpersonal relationship between Abe L. and Frederick D. that would be anything but awkward.

    The psychological pressure of conceiling a racial awareness is mentally debilitating for whites.

    Irene, you resonated a wise admonition to Boeke when you said: “never underestimate the insights of a person with a fresh perspective”. Here is a perspective from a proud black conservative woman that will redefine your racial parameters.

  • Well, goodbye, Dan. People seem to think you are some kind of a white supremacist. I wonder what Snoop, the black conservative in the link I posted in 68/69 would think of you, and you of him. I think you two gentlemen would get along better with one each other than either of you would with Zedd.

    But maybe one day, the three of you will all get together for beers.

  • zingzing

    that lincoln wasn’t the great lover of african americans he’s sometimes portrayed as should not come as a surprise to anyone. i had to read the lincoln-douglas debates in high school, and i’m sure i got a dose of lincoln’s rather fluid attitudes about the blight of slavery and african americans in general during college history courses. he was a man of his time, certainly. but as time wore on, he changed, as have the times. his point of view is about as germane to the current day gop as calling them “the party that freed the slaves” is. times have certainly changed, but there are still those caught in the 19th century.

  • I really AM curious to know what Zedd thinks about Abraham Lincoln’s quote.

  • Zedd, have you ever heard of the reflective-responsive method of communication. Instead of making accusations (e.g. “Shame on you!”, you might try, “so what I hear you saying, Dan…”

  • zingzing

    zedd, just trying to read that second-to-last paragraph of dan’s makes me throw up in my mouth a little. he acts as if cities were wondrously safe before african americans moved in, or as if there was no such thing as a ghetto before. or that blacks had any real chance “as a group” to “contribute to a white society in a positive way” at that point. maybe that’s his point… maybe white people were just ignorant back then. and maybe they still are today.

    maybe i’m misreading him, but i’m having trouble reading it any other way that makes any sense. i know dan is very protective of the white race, but he seems to think it very, very weak.

  • Dan-Without-Parentheses, after hearing your thoughts and handyguy’s on Lincoln’s remark, I agree that I might have been too hard on Abe. I see now his quote does not reflect any malice toward blacks; yet it is still disturbing to hear a remark so very patronizing coming from the lips of someone who was an associate of Frederick Douglass, one of his advisors during the Civil War.

    Why would Lincoln have sought the advice of a black man only a few years after making a remark like that? What Douglass thought of that speech, I wonder. Is it possible that a proud, intelligent black man like Douglass would have accepted the strategy of his race being so depicted, that particular “means” justifying the end of having a pro-abolitionist like Lincoln elected? Maybe, after pretending to bristle at the speech, Douglass and like-minded abolitionists–anything BUT moderate in their dreams for the equality of black Americans–became his supporters and advisors again, and he welcomed that help.

    (I can’t imagine Ron Paul pulling that kind of stunt though. You can still be innocent, without losing your shrewdness, that’s what I think.)

    The USA was founded for white people to be ruled by white people, as you say, but that was because a minority who favored abolition and even education of blacks Benjamin Rush was overruled. Things have changed, and blacks and women can be responsible for making the wise and informed decisions that they couldn’t make back in 1776, when most of them were illiterate.

    I’ve been reading some things written by conservative blacks who feel that liberal whites, (I should say, some liberal whites, and blacks (I don’t care to paint races or political ideologies with too wide a brush) are just as patronizing, just as much of an impediment to the realization of the intellectual and creative potential of blacks– as were the most humane slave-owners of old. This article written by one of them about, not in, Ebonics demonstrates his justifiable outrage.

  • Zedd


    You believe you live under Jim Crow? What are you being denied that I get?

    I get up everyday and go to work. I put myself through college and have worked really hard to build my career under situations that you don’t have the capability to imagine. What break am I getting that you are not getting?

    Thinking about all of the people that suffered through their entire lives only to have you belittle their nightmare, comparing your bratty rant because your era of entitlement is drawing an end (although it is still very peresent and firmly in place, accept you are too naive, sheltered and protected from the real world to know it). Shame on you!

  • Zedd


    Slavery was abolished in other lands because they recognized just how hypocritical and evil they were as a society to support such an institution.

    Claiming that the people of that time had a different sensibility about slavery would mean that they didn’t believe in democracy. They were greedy and hoped to milk slavery and slaves for all they could for as long as they could because they were helpless and isolated from the rest of the world. End of story. The society was evil and hypocritical.

    Not coming to terms with that makes you a mean boy. A really mean one actually.

  • Zedd

    The secession was about slavery. Sorry Irene it just was.

    Since the recent celebrations of the civil war there has been a great deal of discussion about this topic. Again, it was stated over and over and over again that the current revisionist take on the civil war is an invention.

  • Dan

    Hi Irene, Cool how you rejected that pathetic and embarrassing appeal to join the mean girls club. It demonstrates an intellectual confidence and independence that people respect (sometimes grudgingly) and admire.

    The Lincoln quote is one of many that accurately reflect his view. It wasn’t at all comparable to modern day Democrats lying about being against gay marriage in order to trick voters. Nor is Lincolns race realism a thing to be found in any modern 10th grade history book I’ve ever heard of.

    But in fact, Lincolns segregationist view was common to mainstream abolitionists. The competing view was the notion that black slaves were served best by a humane and responsible paternalism that was in fact the typical situation in Christian dominated Southern plantations, and Northern territories as well.

    When you read the Lincoln quote carefully, you notice that there really is no insane antipathy, or irrational hatred, towards black people. This is mostly a modern propaganda invention to demonize a rational race realist viewpoint as an evil thing.

    But in Lincolns time the egalitarian concept had not expanded beyond the Christian meaning of only being ‘in the eyes of God’ to it’s current totalitarian mandate. Although there were talented and industrious blacks–many free blacks, and some with slaves of their own — There just was no evidence that blacks on the whole could, as a group, maintain or contribute to a white society in a positive way.

    In other words, it’s hard to feel the context, because whites and only whites have been successfully conditioned to forfeit a racial conscience of their own, or the right to protect their interests as a collective group in any explicit way.

    If honest Abe could see the USA now; affirmative action (Jim Crow, only not as honest or prolific) permeating nearly every facet of society, made permanent and expanded to give preference to all non-whites; an ever expanding black underclass, turning large areas of formerly orderly cities in to chaotic and sometimes violent no-go zones for whites; and Democrat policies that threaten to turn whites into a despised minority in only a few decades in the Country founded exclusively by whites, exclusively for whites, do you think he would see the error of his thinking?

    On understanding the relationship of slavery to the civil war, I think it would be similar to saying the Iraq war was fought to free the Iraqi people of their dictator. It’s true, but complicated.

  • Boeke

    Gee, the guy I’m thinking of lives in Atherton (where the entire black community is him and Willy Mays).

  • Baronius

    Boeke, one problem is that they tend to run in largely-black districts, which are heavily Democratic. When a black voter votes with his party over his race, that’s a good thing (although I wish that voter would change parties).

  • Boeke

    Pretty words, Dave, but the fact remains that (even in modern times) the republicans hardly ever send a black republican to congress. Even with all that ‘solicitousness’ (patronising?) there is an embarrassing lack of representation. I can’t believe there are no black businessmen who are unqualified, and I’ve known enough myself to know that there are many many accomplished black men who vigorously disagree with dem policies and proclaim themselves republicans, and whom I think would make excellent representatives.

    So, what’s the problem?

  • [Edited] The CBC invited the two recent black republican freshmen to join the CBC and one accepted. He is the lone rep among 40 dems, not because none were asked, but because the reps simply do not elect black congressmen.

    You know, I’d actually like to have been able to read what was edited out here so I could respond in a more complete way, but I’ll answer what’s left.

    The current African American contingent within the GOP is smaller than it is in the general population therefore the number of elected black Republicans is correspondingly smaller. In my experience within the party and its organizations interested black activists and candidates are met with an almost bizarre level of solicitousness and encouragement. White Republicans bend over backwards to welcome blacks and do everything they can to advance them through the ranks and into positions of prominence, but there just aren’t that many of them.

    Most of the black rank and file GOP voters will hardly even admit to being Republicans because of peer pressure. As an election judge I’ve seen the same thing time and time again. They come into the polls for a primary election where they have to declare their party before they are given a ballot and they will wait until their friends or family are distracted or bend over and whisper in the ear of the clerk that they want a Republican ballot.

    This is especially true of young black voters. It appears to be generational. Over about the age of 65 many are willing to admit to being life-long Republicans. Between 30 and 65 they are all Democrats by default. Under 30 they clearly want to vote Republican in pretty large numbers but are being intimidated out of it by family and friends.

    The fact is that the GOP welcomes every African American who believes in liberty and limited government – which benefit them just as much as whites. But sadly the Democrats were so successful in demonizing the GOP starting in the 70s that we have an ongoing uphill battle to win them back, but demographic factors are in our favor as they move into the middle class and become more educated and self-aware.


  • OK, back to fighting with Zedd. That’s an exceedingly curious definition for “racist” that you have.

    I don’t think the fact that there was slavery before, and no slavery after the war was the most important thing about it. I think the most important thing about it was that it was a horrible tragedy. Going to Gettysburg gives me the creeps. Maybe I have too vivid an imagination, but I can see the stream red with the mingled blood of brothers at war…

    I maintain that significant progress was being made through winning people over by reason, that had the abolitionists been given enough time, had their passion for doing right not been prostituted by those who wanted war for other reasons, slavery could have been abolished, in not many more years than if that bloody war had not been fought. And the years of rancor that the war and Reconstruction brought to the south could have been time, instead, for the abolitionists to work on hearts that had not been hardened to the North and its ideas by such things as Sherman’s march…

    I feel the same way about the American Revolution.

    In fact, Wilberforce (a Christian, but not the drawing and quartering kind, Handyguy) was largely responsible for the PEACEFUL eradication of slavery in the U.K. (c. 1806) and he was ALSO a vocal advocate for the rights of the American colonists. His ideas were gaining traction in the U.K. The American Revolution might have been avoided as well.

    OK, enough from me.

  • It’s a little strange to see the cheering crowds, mostly young people, in front of the White House. [At least one person is carrying a Bush-Cheney poster.]

    It’s not clear whether the primary intention was to capture him, or if killing him was the real goal.

  • I feel really weird saying this, but I’ll say it. I’m sad that O.B.L died without ever making peace with his enemies. And I’m sad that with his death, there are probably going to be people just as angry and violent as he was to fill his place. It’s been…10 years…since this man was Public Enemy Number One for the USA. This sadness feels a little like nostalgia. No. His death was a milestone that caused me to look back over the last 10 years, and mourn for all the violence.

    How do other people feel about it?

  • By the way, with the news bulletin just flashing about Bin Laden’s death, we won’t be talking about anything else the next few days, I suspect.

  • No one in this thread, certainly not me, is denying that slavery was a crucial issue causing Southern states to secede. But Lincoln fought a war to keep the union together…freeing the slaves in the South was not the initial intention.

    From our 21st century point of view, the fact that there was slavery before the war and no slavery after is the most important thing about it. Rightly so. It just shouldn’t obscure the actual motives and intentions of the warring parties.

  • Zedd

    On the Civil War, it was about slavery. It became in vogue to give all sorts of other reasons for it other than slavery later on but at the time all reputable historians will tell you, it was about slavery.

    Who would be proud of grandparents that were so evil as to believe themselves to have a right to own humans. Its sick. So of course one would shy away from that, especially when the people who were offended don’t have much power. You can say whatever you want about them, including rewrite their history right in front of their faces and they can do nothing, because you have invented a lie which says you are innately superior and anything you say about them or to them, is by default, correct. Silly and tiresome really.

  • Zedd

    It’s true. It is a “Western” dominated world. Westerners, American Whites more so have been unyielding in assuming that their way is the way, naively missing the breadth of complexity and depth that lies outside of it, however believing that those that do the same about their culture are inferior. It just is Irene.

    It is not racist to say that culturally because of the configurations of things that Whites have glossed over the details that dont pertain to them and yet have expected that what is important to them SHOULD be common knowledge (else one be ignorant, inferior, etc.). Its only wise to inquire what it is.

    Irene, also, racism (its real meaning) can only be attributed to the “race” that holds the power. Another thing that people don’t know….

    The world is changing and of course the race thing will fade, much like blood letting and all of the other “fundamentals” of the past.

  • “The ignorance of ________ about simple concepts that don’t have a personal effect on them, is shameful.”

    Now, there’s a racist statement, no matter how you fill in the blank. Own up to it, Zedd.

  • Zedd

    I suppose its a wonderful thing that no one wants to be considered to be racist. However its rather tiresome that no one ever owns up to it also. There is rare ever a racist incident that is labeled as such when it occurs, however we know that the world is full of racists. Interesting and tiresome really.

    The ignorance of Whites about simple concepts that don’t have a personal effect on them, is shameful. Whites have a silly expectation that everyone must know everything about them, else they are ignorant, however they know nor care to know about the complexities of other important social phenomenon that don’t effect them.

    Racism is a massive, defining fixture in our society. It is HUGE. However so so many people remain completely naive as to its reach and implications. It’s as relevant and far reaching as religion, capitalism, and such matters. It just is.

  • …Or he’s a dang despot. Throw him out.

  • *resetting the insult-o-meter to zero* To change one’s mind because political instincts ALONE tell him it’s time to change it? Never a good thing in a leader. To change one’s mind because one hears the people he serves and is convinced, on an intellectual and moral level, that he needs to change his mind? That’s the hallmark of a good leader I would say. And if that requirement is not met…well, either he was so in tune with the people he served, and made them only the promises HE INTENDED on keeping, that there is no need in anyone’s opinion, for him to change his mind anytime soon. Poifect.

  • Boeke

    Is it really such a good thing to never change your mind?

  • #45 …more or less conservative? maybe it doesn’t matter?…OK since I’m back, Dr.Paul changes his mind about few things, AS we’ve established, but he DID change his mind about the death penalty, and it might interest you to know why. (one minute.)

    Look at this way, Handyguy, even if you can’t see Ron Paul as President, you can at least begin to appreciate that he is promoting a more humane stance in the Republican Party–toward criminals, including the targets of out misnamed “War on Drugs,” toward gays, towards “our enemies” abroad–. That influence is something progressives should be happy about, rather than attempting to screw up.

    So I really sound like a conservative? Hmmm.

  • Handyguy, I would like to hear you and STM (Silver Surfer, lately S.T..M) have a conversation about the American Civil War. I tend to agree with your take on it (it was primarily about succession, and behind that, I think, even more powerfully, economics) more than I agree with his.

    STM, Clavos, Dr. Dreadful, Cindy…there are a lot of people I disagree with on many things, but they can talk to me without making me feel stupid. Is it because they’re stupider than people who can’t talk to me WITOUT making me feel stupid? Or because they’re more conservative? I don’t think so.

    #44: Maybe I think better of them (or myself) than I ought to, but I don’t think you are right about Baronius and dan. Goodbye for now, and thank you for calling the future president of the United States “Dr.” Paul. It’s good to get used to using honorifics with his name, Handyguy. 🙂

  • Irene #42: this is possibly because they perceive you as a fellow conservative, not the liberal ‘enemy.’

  • Irene #40: That may indeed be the reason Dr. Paul will never win a national election [no insult to him intended] or even a national opinion poll.

    We tend to want to force history and historical figures into a contemporary perspective — but the Civil War wasn’t fought about racial attitudes per se. It was fought about whether states could secede from the union. Slavery was the fulcrum of contention; civil rights for free blacks were not a central issue.

    But you could find widespread views on race even in the North in 1860 [or for that matter, in 1960] that would be considered more or less intolerable in today’s public discourse. In other words, the Lincoln of 1858 would be a racist by 2011 standards, but he was a progressive pragmatist by the standards of his own day.

    I mean, it hasn’t been too many centuries ago that drawing and quartering and burning the intestines of a living man before brutally killing him was considered perfectly acceptable by devout Christians as a way to punish traitors. In a public spectacle at that. And the US is now the only Western democracy that still carries out capital punishment for any crime. Attitudes and cultures evolve.

  • Boeke, as to your recommendation that I ignore Dan and Baronius. I generally give people three opportunities to be grossly condescending, then I consider, not ignoring them, but refraining from allowing them to engage me in a conversation about anything important. So far, Dan and Baronius have never acted that way to me.

  • Boeke, never underestimate the insights of a person with a fresh perspective. 🙂

  • Thankyou Handyguy, for providing us the context of Abe Lincoln’s racist remark, and explaining to me that it was Lincoln’s way of “winning votes without freaking people out.”

    I can’t imagine Ron Paul trying to “win votes without freaking people out.” His remarks on finance and war have been exceedingly unpopular among his peers, but he stuck to his guns, and people have been beginning to see that he was, and is, right about so many things.

    The man has the courage of his convictions.

    If Ron Paul ever believed the racist things Lew Rockwell published in his name, you may be DANG sure he wouldn’t be overseeing a deadly civil war three years later, claiming to be the Great Emancipator of Blacks.

  • Boeke

    Irene: Dan’s #25 is a red herring designed to distract attention from the topic. Ignore it. Dan and Baronius are both fond of such noise.

    At the same time it IS alarming that you are unfamiliar with the Lincoln quote. One would think that anyone who was awake in highschool History or Civics class would know about it. But it’s true that political factions of all stripes have campaigned to deify various early Americans, and even struggled to suppress truthful representations of US history.

    If you look in youtube you’ll find many many re-enactments of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Some are actually thrilling to see.

  • Whatever, Andy. Same old same old. Boring. Next record please.

  • Boeke

    cf 28 Dave:

    [Edited] The CBC invited the two recent black republican freshmen to join the CBC and one accepted. He is the lone rep among 40 dems, not because none were asked, but because the reps simply do not elect black congressmen.

  • A politician’s statements should be read in context and consumed with the requisite serving of salt.

    Unless he’s a conservative, then he means exactly what a liberal says he means.

  • The Lincoln quote is from the debates with Douglas, 3 years before he became president. It’s good to be cautious when evaluating statements about race made in a very different place and time. In the context of the range of opinions in 1858 America, that was unfortunately not an unusual stance for a white man to take.

    And in the debate as a whole, it’s clear that Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery, although he was more moderate than abolitionists — and Douglas wanted to allow newly admitted states to be slave states.

    It’s a politician taking a careful position to win votes without freaking people out. A rough comparison would be Obama [and Hillary Clinton] saying they opposed gay marriage during the 2008 campaign, while abhorring the Defense of Marriage Act and the use of gay marriage as a wedge issue by conservatives.

    A politician’s statements should be read in context and consumed with the requisite serving of salt.

  • It’s more accurate to say that the GOP, since absorbing Dixiecrats [like Bull Connor] in the 1960s, has been cynical about gaining political advantage from the racism in the electorate.

    It’s not that the party is officially racist, or even deliberately racist, but since Nixon’s Southern Strategy [at least], they have gladly accepted the votes of racists.

    [I would include in the racist column anyone who would describe the “Democrat” party as “anti-white.” This nauseating hate speech is worthy of the historical Afrikaaners governments of South Africa.]

  • But it DOES seem to be the weekend for me to be discussing racist quotes made by people we are surprised to learn are racists. Maybe this quote doesn’t tell the full story about how Lincoln felt about blacks? Or did his opinion change after he wrote it? Or…was it ghost-written?

  • Dan in #25, that was a startling quote from Abe Lincoln you posted. I think people (those who noticed it) will probably need a reference for it. Abe Lincoln really said this?

    “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

    If this quote is for real, it confirms my sense the Civil War was not some grand and glorious endeavor to get “rights for blacks.” It was a national tragedy, for families on BOTH sides of the Mason Dixie line. I suspect if the abolitionist movement were allowed to continue peacefully, winning people over to the truth of the equality of human beings sanely, through reason rather than the terror of war, there would have been far fewer lynchings in the post-war years, far less bad blood, and we probably would have stopped writing articles like this one a hundred years ago.

  • Baronius

    There ya go – if the Republicans don’t have blacks, they’re racists; if they do have blacks, they’re tokens. If you don’t pay attention to skin color, you’re a racist, but if you count people by their race, you’re an anti-racist.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Michael Steele’s chairmanship of the RNC was one of the most blatant examples of tokenism (“look, we’ve got a black man in charge, too!”) I’ve seen in a long, long time…and most people knew it for what it was.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    Have you seen ANY ‘moonbat’ such as myself saying that ALL Republicans or conservatives are racist? No, you haven’t.

    BUT did you address what I pointed out on the previous page, that FORTY-SIX PERCENT of Republicans in MS STILL think that interracial marriage should be banned?

    Most Republicans honestly try to not be racist…but they DO tolerate racists within their own party. The poll I linked to PROVES it.

  • Ok, first off, David Duke ran for office as both a Democrat and a Republican.

    As for the history of black Republicans in office, it’s not bad. There have been 3 African American Republican Senators and 27 Congressmen. Currently Allen West and Gary Franks are black Republicans in the House. Traditionally black Republicans are not invited to join the Congressional Black Caucus, even if they ask.

    And BTW, up until a few months ago the Chairman of the Republican National Committee was black, and right now we have a black candidate running for president in the Republican Party.

  • Boeke

    The republicans have a poor record of electing blacks to congress, having only 3 in the house, compared to the Democrats 40. In fact, the republicans have only elected a half dozen black congressmen in the past 100 years.

    The republicans appear to be quite racist.

  • @Dan automatically thinking this is a Dem vs. Rep. thing… Not really, it’s about the blatant racism continuing to crop-up in the echelons of the GOP. There was once an age when the party would have condemned it. I hope they will do that again someday… but I don’t hold much hope in the current environment.

  • Dan

    “The GOP needs to ask itself if they still want to be the party of Lincoln. Right now, they are looking an awful lot like the party of David Duke and ‘Bull’ Connor”—Jerald Cumbus

    It’s difficult to imagine what that would look like since Bull Connor was a Democrat and Abe Lincoln expressed sentiments such as:

    “I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

    Ah well, history is subjective to the perspective of the interpreter eh? All perspectives …equal in validity?

    My interpretation for what Jerald observes is that the Democrat party is the party in transition and whites are fleeing an increasingly explicit anti-white party. If anyones “mask” is slipping, it’s theirs.

    It could be that, as the party gets more diverse racially, it will become even more aggressive in its anti-white zeal. The congressional black caucus is there already.

    Who would have thought that the Clintons would have been so roundly accused of “racism” in their campaign strategy? Then there is Prof. Gates and the Cambridge police officer who acted “stupidly”. And the Black Panthers redux, intimidating white voters with billy clubs, get their criminal charges dropped?

    Some whites are seeing this and getting out. I know of some.

    There are fissures developing in the Democrat party. To the dismay of white liberal Californians, black voters were the decisive blow to killing a gay marriage referendum. How do muslim fundamentalists and female feminists get along?

    Republicans have not been ideal conservatives. Not even close. But for the most part they have remained consistent about appealing to those who would prefer to live in a colorblind society. At least when you compare them to the race obsessivests in the Democrat party.

  • Boeke

    No volunteers, so I started doing a quick search to determine how many republicans in congress are black, because surely if republicans are not racist then they would send a ‘reasonable’ number of blacks to congress (which probably means the House in this case).

    I found this:


    “Membership in the Congressional Black Caucus has never been restricted to Democrats,” CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee said in a statement to POLITICO. “Should either of the two African-American Republicans recently elected to the House of Representatives request membership in the Congressional Black Caucus, they will be welcomed.”

    Lee’s statement noted that, “during the 40-year history of the Congressional Black Caucus, there have been three African-American Republican members of the House of Representatives. Two congressmen, Melvin Evans of the Virgin Islands and Gary Franks of Connecticut, decided to join the Congressional Black Caucus, however, Congressman J.C. Watts of Oklahoma did not.”

    Last week, POLITICO reported that freshman-elect Allen West, who defeated Ron Klein in Florida’s 22nd District, was interested in joining the caucus. “That has been a monolithic voice in the body politic for far too long. There is a growing conservative black voice in this country,” West said.

    The only other black Republican elected this cycle, Tim Scott of South Carolina’s 1st District, is less interested in joining. “I haven’t really decided. I’m probably leaning against it at this point,” said Scott, who served in the South Carolina Legislative black caucus for his first year before dropping out because he felt the ideological differences were too great. “My experience has been the whole notion of one nation — so I really shy away from things that create some kind of boundaries. … It highlights the divisions I’ve been pushing forward to erase.”

    That looks pretty thin, to me.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    So…if racism has so little to do with it, then WHY do 46% of Republicans in MS STILL think there should be a ban on interracial marriage? See the link in reply #21.

  • Boeke

    So, tell me, Cannonshop: how many black republicans have the republicans sent to congress in the past 50 years?


    Any volunteers?

  • @Cannonshop criticize Obama as much as you like on substance. I may even agree with you from time to time.

    There is no need to introduce race. If Republicans want to continue poisoning the well, it’s their party.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Braden –

    Your contention that the Democrats are somehow “just as racist” is a false argument. Tell me, can you show me ANY evidence that there’s racism among the left that even comes close to this poll earlier THIS year – not thirty years ago, but THIS year – where 46% of ALL Republicans in Mississippi STILL think there should be a ban on interracial marriage?

    Braden, there’s a REASON why the vast majority of Republican conventions and Tea Party meetings are almost completely lily-white. Most Republicans DO honestly try to not be racist…but they also DO tolerate racism among their fellow Republicans. The poll above is proof of that!

  • Cannonshop

    Without race-baiting, without the idea that any opposition to President Obama is rooted solely and completely in the colour of his skin, his supporters have nothing to use in his defense. The man’s policy initiatives at best have a record of stunning mediocrity, and on average have proven to be a string of well-intentioned failure mixed with shoddy, half-assed and abandoned efforts. Anyone that can make Jimmy Carter look good, has a problem, and if Obamaniacs couldn’t use the cry “RAAAAACIST!!!” on his opponents, they’d have nothing to talk about.

    It is fortunate for Democrats indeed, that there ARE idiots out there willing to give them material-Birthers, the useful idiots without whom, Dems would have to actually examine the ACTIONS of their hero.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger B –

    If you’ll check, the Republicans have sent a total of less than ten African-Americans to Congress since 1900. IIRC, the current total is something like seven.

    But we have to bear in mind, now, that there’s no racists there….

  • In a non-partisan spirit, the Republican party really needs to show people like Kerns the door! It also really needs to slap people like Limbaugh around when they get a case of verbal diarrhea. It also needs to cut out the race-tinged dog whistle that is birtherism and simply say it is wrong. The real point of my article is to point out the danger the GOP faces. I wish that the leadership would directly condemn this stuff when the issue of race comes up. All too often it’s CRICKETS.

  • Baronius

    Jerald – My button, by the way, is that I get livid about race-baiting. It’s a form of bullying. I should recognize that false accusations of racism are generally motivated by a decent desire to protect people from bullies, and aren’t intended to be mean-spirited. But I have a short fuse with them anyway.

  • Roger B

    JC Watts was some years ago and quit in anger at the republicans.

    Again I ask, how many black congressmen have the republicans sent to congress in the last several years? IIRC, the answer is few or none.

    IIRC, there are no republican members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

  • S.T..M

    I think it’s amazing that the Obama-Dunham families had the foresight to bodgy up Barack’s birth, falsely have him registered in Hawaii, organise to have birth notices posted in the Honululu Advertiser, and everything else, just in case, one day, he might become president of the United States.

    That’s American ingenuity.

    Unlike the fake Kenyan certificate, which was a copy of a birth certificate from the State of South Australia (all the certificates are slightly different in each state of Australia, but remarkably, South Australia’s appears near identical to that of Kenya … a country of a different continent!).

    Probably the telling factor about the alleged Kenyan Obama birth certificate, though, is that it bears the stamp of the Republic of Kenya.

    The only problem is, Kenya didn’t become a republic until a full year after the date of issue.

    It WAS independent, but as a Dominion, like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

    It’d be a bit like Canada handing out birth certificates with Republic of Canada on them.

    It’s not, and they don’t.

    That’s the level to which this debate has sunk. And yes, I’d bet if he was a white fella, no one would be batting an eyelid. And yes, of course there is a race aspect to this.

    However, I think it’s wrong to suggest the GOP is racist. There might be some racists associated with it – they’re everywhere, you know – but I suspect it’s a small hard core of idiots who think the birther debate is real.

    Plenty of those on the right know it’s total lunacy and realise it is damaging the party as a whole … including our own Dave Nalle.

    The birthers are conspiracy theorists who will, bizarrely, trace the conspiracy all the way back to the President’s birth (“hey Martha, you never know, one day he MIGHT become president”).

    They are in the same league as the truthers, who refuse to believe that a pack of lunatics could plot and carry out an attack on the US without US help.

    Such is the price of democracy, however, so it’s not all bad even if it’s wrong …

  • Baronius

    Jerald – See? Everyone’s got a button.

  • I remember Allen West-FL currently (don’t think he is a member of the caucus) … JC Watts of OK. Did I forget anyone? Tim Scott, SC that’s all the recent ones anyway…

  • Boeke

    Out of curiosity, how many African-Americans has the GOP sent to congress in the past 50 years? How many republicans in the Congressional Black Caucus?

  • The purging of the voter rolls is real enough as were all of the other well-documented problems in Florida. And there are huge problems with the voting apparatus in this country. Have you not been paying attention?

    Have you forgotten that recent race in WI? No conspiracy theories there… it was majorly majorly messed-up.

  • Baronius

    Jerald, if you’ll recall the 2000 election with the Jeb/Harris conspiracy theories, and the 2004 election with the Diebold conspiracy theories, you’ll realize that unfortunately a lot of people make up foolish stories rather than accept their political losses.

  • Fred Phelps is a Dem…? I think he just qualifies as LOON.

    So, the Birther thing was just about legality??? I don’t think so… the racist dog whistle springs into action…

    I will ask you one very legitimate question… Would the same people have done the same to John McCain who had legitimate issues due to overseas birth?
    Why= The people who started the issue and who promulgated it CANNOT ACCEPT an African American as President full stop…

  • Glenn, for every Republican you have that is a so-called racist, there’s a Democrat that is either racist or a hate-monger like Fred Phelps. I love how you STILL have no proof that connects the TEA party to racism, but you make up a mythical connection because you presume it’s implied.

    I’d like to see some documentation on your Mississippi anecdote. And you may have mixed up the Kansas representative with the Oklahoma one mentioned in this article.

    Furthermore, I would say that since you have no proof of these allegations between the TEA party/GOP and racism, you are creating a stereotype, which could be construed along the same lines as saying “blacks don’t work as hard as whites.” You’re doing the exact same thing that you harp on the “racist GOP” for. How interesting… This must be why you can’t answer for the skeletons in the Dem closet or the crosses on Robert Byrd’s front lawn.

    Your anecdotal stereotype creation is mirrors the racist behavior you rail against. That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Oops, please don’t call me a racist for saying that….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    See what I mean, Jerald?

    Perhaps these Republicans aren’t aware that the government once had to sue Donald Trump in order to get him to open his rentals to blacks.

    Perhaps these Republicans aren’t aware that a poll less than a month ago showed that 46% of ALL Republicans in MS still think that interracial marriage should be illegal.

    Earlier this week, a GOP representative in Kansas stated that blacks don’t work as hard as whites…and blamed it on the government, of course.

    And if you believe the Republicans and the Tea Partiers, racism has absolutely NOTHING to do with ‘birtherism’. Riiiiiight.

    And then there’s the racist statements that were printed in Ron Paul’s name in Ron Paul’s newspaper…that the Republicans are claiming aren’t at all his fault.

    I could go on all day long listing racist actions and statements and tendencies by GOP politicians, but I have NEVER said that all Republicans are racist – but it is a FACT that a lot are, and feel greatly threatened by the fact that we’ve got a black man in the white house. Anyone who says otherwise is either in denial or a flat-out liar.

  • I always wear my helmet on such occasions… As always the right can dish it out. Remember Rush Limbaugh calling Sotamayor and President Obama racists?

    Remember Willie Horton? That was George W. Bush’s idea… Or, remember Jesse Helms? Macaca? The Harold Ford Jr. playboy ad. IF I wanted to to an account on the full extent of racism this piece would have had to be a book.

    @Glenn, Sharjah to be precise about it.

  • Jay

    I live in the south. Racism is alive and well… the last two people who I took note of and would fairly classify as “racists” was a plumber at my house who was a democrat and told me he a Hillary Clinton supporter because “I just can’t bring myself to vote for a black man for president” and a cable guy at my work who doesn’t vote at all but claims he isn’t racist because “I have colored TV”. So from my first hand experience it would seem there are just as many racists that vote democrat and don’t vote at all as there would be in the TEA party. Though, having gone to about 4 Tea Party Rallies (Two in DC) I can say other than the RARE scattering of “Obama is Hitler” signs (And I do mean rare) I saw no evidence of racism… the black people who were at the rally, participating, would have felt pretty uncomfortable if there were a lot of racists at those rallies.

  • Okay, absolutely nothing you said proves that the GOP is racist. You point to David Duke, who has no current affiliation with the GOP and the GOP currently has nothing to do with him.

    If the GOP is the party of David Duke, Democrats are the party of Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist church, who is a lifelong Democrat and was a delegate for Al Gore at the 1988 Democratic National Convention. So by your awful, ill-conceived guilt-by-association game, Democrats are just as much the party of hatred as the GOP.

    You keep saying the TEA party is racist but provide no proof. You took one state legislator’s comment on a bill in Oklahoma and ran with that. So you’re still playing guilt-by-association there. But your actual proof for racism being some real plank of any TEA party or GOP platform is pulled out of thin air.

    I suppose you would gladly overlook the fact one of the major stars in the TEA party movement is Congressman Allen West, an African American from Florida. Or perhaps Herman Cain, an African-American GOP candidate for president in 2012. Oh wait, what about the GOP’s former chairman Michael Steele? Or we could go old school with Frederick Douglass or Martin Luther King, Jr. Take your pick. I’ll keep my fingers crossed to see if your association game works both ways.

    Oh and how about Democrat racists? The late Senator Robert Byrd who was an actual klansman who said he would rather see Old Glory trampled in the dirt than see this nation overtaken by “race mongrels.” Or George Wallace, who while he supported segregation as a member of the Democrat party. And I would say Jeremiah Wright too, but oh well… I guess Democrats are all racist too.

    Okay, just say the word “racist” one more time and maybe people will believe it. No proof, no evidence necessary, just say it. Glenn will nod his head in agreement, as long as it makes conservatives look bad, no proof necessary for him either.

  • Of course he’s right Glenn – A bunch of white, racist motherfuckers just elected the first black man as president. We must ALL be racists!

    And let us not forget that racist bastion of Virginia, fucking southern states. Was it NY or MA that elected the first black governor???? No it wasn’t! It was a fucking racist southern state that did it!

    This shit isn’t even worth reading! I’ve got better things to do…shit, I’d rather watch the wedding than read another whining liberal’s assesment of what’s wrong with EVERYONE else.

    I love how liberals call losing semi-successful!!! WTF is that? Semi-successful candidacies? He fucking lost, what’s successful about that?

    Oh, now I get it…another professor! ‘Nuff said!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And you’re absolutely right – but prepare to be castigated by the BC conservatives who are absolutely convinced that there’s little or no racism among the Republicans or the Tea Party.

    BTW – Dubai? or Abu Dhabi? Been to Dubai quite a few times – nice place!