by Mark Silva
In the course of any debate, the most extreme views have a way of overshadowing sensible discourse. And they have a way of backfiring on the most extreme debaters -- iand perhaps their entire party, when the reckless are not reined in.
So it goes with Tom Tancredo, the former congressman from Colorado who might not even be a factor in the current debate over federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court if he hadn't sought the Republican Party's presidential nomination last year as an outspoken critic of illegal immigration - and if he hadn't also denounced the National Council of La Raza, one of the nation's oldest Hispanic advocacy groups, as a "Latino KKK without the hoods.''
It was Sotomayor's association with the organization, listed in a 2000 American Bar Association biography of the member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and also her own suggestion that a "Latina woman'' may be better suited to understand some things than a white male is, that prompted Tancredo to say this on CNN yesterday:
""If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case... which is, from my point of view any way, just nothing more than a ... Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses. If you belong to something like that in a way that's going to convince me and a lot of other people that it's got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is 'All for the race. Nothing for the rest.' What does that tell you?''
What that tells La Raza is this: Tancredo doesn't know what he's talking about. For starters, La Raza says, that's not the organization's motto or what it's all about.
"It's not the first time for Mr. Tancredo when he doesn't know what the heck he's talking about," Lisa Navarrete, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, told the Talking Points Memo blog. "I don't know what he bases the assertion on, since he didn't provide any facts or evidence to that effect, as to why he calls us the Latino KKK. But I can assure you our motto or logo as he phrased it, is not what he says it is. It's not the motto of any Latino group... We've urged the [Republican] party to not allow people like Tom Tancredo to dominate the debate, as he has on the immigration issue... And he has, and it's cost them."
Or, as Glenn Thrush at Politico.com put it, writing about La Raza: "It is also one of the nation's oldest mainstream Hispanic advocacy groups, with 300 neighborhood affiliates and corporate sponsorship that includes Citigroup. And it has not been implicated in a 150-year history of lynchings, night rides, voter registration obstruction or enforcement -- at the barrel of a gun -- of Jim Crow segregation laws.''
Tancredo also had said in an interview on MSNBC the night before that Sotomayor "appears to be a racist.'' He was taking issue with Sotomayor's comment, speaking at the University of California, in 2001, that she "would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Sotomayor said this in her delivery of the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001 at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. The Berkeley La Raza Law Journal published the lecture the following year.
And, naturally, La Raza was among the groups hailing President Barack Obama's nomination of a woman positioned to become the first Hispanic on the highest court.
"Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguía, NCLR President and CEO. "udge Sotomayor's story personifies the American Dream for so many Latinos in this country."
"It is incredible to me,'' Tancredo said. "There is no one else I can think of who could have possibly said the kind of things she said, if they were reported accurately, about the benefits of being a brown woman as opposed to being a white man in interpreting the law, and nobody could look at that and say that that was not a racist, sexist statement that would disqualify anybody else...[s]he is a Hispanic woman, and therefore we can't say things like this...I'm telling you, she appears to be a racist.''
As RealClearPolitics puts it, "that seems to be an emerging line of attack from opponents of the new Supreme Court nominee....
"The criticism is based on two incidents involving Judge Sonia Sotomayor. First, a ruling in the Second Circuit upholding a decision by the city of New Haven to deny promotions to firefighters because minorities who took the test did not pass. Second, Sotomayor's quote in a 2001 speech, that a "wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who has not lived that life."
Radio's Rush Limbaugh got things going when he called Sotomayor "a reverse racist" on his radio show: "Here you have a racist - you might want to soften that, and you might want to say a reverse racist. And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone."
And none other than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has weighed in with a -get this - "tweet'' on the Twitter circuit: "White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
Yet, for the sake of a Republican Party which lost the last presidential election by a significant electoral margin - and which saw the Democrat, Obama, take two thirds of the Hispanic vote, the backing of the nation's fastest-growing minority - leaders probably will be well advised to withdraw from the labels that the likes of Tancredo, Limbaugh and Gingrich are attempting to attach to a candidate for the Supreme Court - not to mention La Raza.
The sooner the debate returns to a sensible vocabulary, it seems, the better off everyone involved will be.
Comments
leaders probably will be well advised to withdraw from the labels that the likes of Tancredo, Limbaugh and Gingrich are attempting to attach to a candidate for the Supreme Court - not to mention La Raza.
Now we know that won't happen. On the contrary, prepare for the onslaught of dittoheads to explain the opposite. Once again the republicans are out of the mainstream. They remain extremists.
Posted by: bill r. | May 29, 2009 7:19 AM
It is absolutely AMAZING to me that all these old white men can get away with this nonsense time and time again.
During the campaign for the President, we got the Obama monkey and the Magic Negro from the GOP. They then had the unmitigated audacity to say that the Democrats were bringing "race" into the campaign.
We now get "leaders" of the GOP coming out and calling Sotomayor a racist.
Tom Tancredo is possibly the worst. Remember when Durbin got beat up for the Nazi remark?
Imagine the faux outrage from the GOP if the tables were turned.
Why do the DEMOCRATS keep allowing the GOP to get away with this type of thing?
When are they going to grow a spine and call these folks out for this type of thing?
Unbelievable.
Posted by: W OBrien | May 29, 2009 8:49 AM
He's projecting his own hate and racism on tothers.
Posted by: Siggy | May 29, 2009 9:40 AM
La Raza had been actively funding a group called Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA) as recently as 2003 – they have never repudiated the views of this group.
The MEChA group is absolutely a racist group that believes that La Raza – “the race” is entitled to most of the southwest US-which they call Aztlan- and does not recognize our borders. This alone does not make it a racist organization- it’s stated goals do;
As Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter has been quoted as saying:
"The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."
LaRaza is absolutely a legit organization that provides many services - tax payer funded- But they also have a n issue with the groups that they are associated with- Not sure how to get around that “ethnic cleansing” line and avoid being criticized as racist.
Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 10:17 AM
Anyone who objects to Judge Sotomayor, or President Obama, is a racist. Because there's no logical reason ANYONE could disagree with our president, or any of His appointees.
Posted by: Bill Hussein | May 29, 2009 10:17 AM
Yeah, right Bill r. Do you mean labeling people like DITTIHEADS and EXTREMISTS just because they feel differently than yourself. Thanks for reminding me that Hypocrisy is still alive and well in the good ole USA. You might try to refrain from throwing stones within your glass house.
Posted by: Tim | May 29, 2009 10:38 AM
Yeah, right Bill r. Do you mean labeling people like DITTIHEADS and EXTREMISTS just because they feel differently than yourself.
Posted by: Tim | May 29, 2009 10:38 AM
Oh...that's a good one. Somehow pot calling the kettle black comes to mind. The demonizing from the right gets thicker and thicker and now....poor babies...they are the victims. The palling around with terrorist, Socialist labeling, unpatriotic name calling crowd certainly has a short memory.
Posted by: bill r. | May 29, 2009 12:38 PM
heartburn, brilliant work. Clearly anyone who belongs to a group, that was at one time affliated with another group, that at one time had a member make a racist statement, is themselves a racist! That simply cannot be argued with. I'm proud that there are thinkers like you carrying on my work and tradition.
Posted by: Joseph McCarthy | May 29, 2009 12:47 PM
What Tim? The dittoheads named themselves. Not quite the same.
Posted by: mort | May 29, 2009 12:58 PM
Any person of color would have to be a reverse racist. They could not be at all qualified.
Posted by: Hussein Bill | May 29, 2009 1:06 PM
W OBrien: FYI - the lyrics to "Barack the Magic Negro" were lifted almost verbatim from articles in various leftist newspapers - in particular an article by David Ehrenstein (who is black for those of you who care to know) which addressed the acceptability of Barack's "blackness." It was a parody of Leftist racism; the fact that the concept of satire is lost on you does not surprise me.
Posted by: Eugene Hamburger | May 29, 2009 1:23 PM
She is a racist!! But it's perfectly okay to be a liberal racist in this country. Just like Obama...the media will fail to vet her and any Republican that even hints at asking a tough question will be vilified!! The true racists in this country are liberals!!!
Posted by: Joe | May 29, 2009 1:51 PM
heartburn, brilliant work. Clearly anyone who belongs to a group, that was at one time affliated with another group, that at one time had a member make a racist statement, is themselves a racist! That simply cannot be argued with. I'm proud that there are thinkers like you carrying on my work and tradition.
Posted by: Joseph McCarthy | May 29, 2009 12:47 PM
If you think actively funding MEChAis a loose association your delusional...
MECHa has a stated goal of seizing control of a number of our States, and would use ethnic cleansing to complete the job- why would you excuse even a loose association with a group like that? And for that matter how different is that goal from any KKK activity?
Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 1:51 PM
It's no secret that Tancredo hates hispanics. This smear campaign is laughable, and a few "sensible" Republicans are finally pointing out that it's damaging to the party.
Posted by: ricardo | May 29, 2009 2:33 PM
MECHa has a stated goal of seizing control of a number of our States, and would use ethnic cleansing to complete the job- why would you excuse even a loose association with a group like that? And for that matter how different is that goal from any KKK activity?
Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 1:51 P
More lies. So typical of the mindless right, parroting back whatever rumors they hear without ever bothering to look for the truth.
http://www.nationalmecha.org/philosophy.html
"Objective One: We recognize that Chicanismo is evolutionary and that a Chicano identity is not a nationality but a philosophy. Chicano nationalism is the key to taking our people forward. M.E.Ch.A. will not discriminate against any Mechista who works for and adopts Chicanismo as indicated in El Plan de Santa Barbara, and the Philosophy of M.E.Ch.A. This philosophy is the key to taking our people forward."
Please show us anywhere in that document where it advocates the seizure of the southwest (BTW, how did the US get the southwestern states heartburn?) or ethinic cleansing.
Posted by: Martinez | May 29, 2009 2:43 PM
and any Republican that even hints at asking a tough question will be vilified!! The true racists in this country are liberals!!!
Posted by: Joe | May 29, 2009 1:51 PM
Yes...those "hints" of a tough question....like......she is a member of the latino KKK. Great question. Those poor republicans just sooo misunderstood.
Posted by: bill r. | May 29, 2009 3:03 PM
Even though I have no real concern about Judge S.S.-- I did wonder a bit--can a European-American woman who worked hard, kept her nose clean and who now has a comfortable life also be considered sympathetic? Judge S.S.'s family story actually sounds like many families that I know or knew. Life difficulties are very ecumenical.
Posted by: Vivian | May 29, 2009 3:18 PM
heartburn....You and that spoon fed garbage emitted by the right wing fruitcakes is laughable. We see the extreme rabid with the likes of BillBo, Vannity, cry me a river Beck and the rest of the vermon in a concerted effort to smear once again. Limpbag 2 hours ago called Sotomayor the David Duke. The only good thing is America is wise to the lies and distortion from the swine like reports from Faux News.
Posted by: bill r. | May 29, 2009 3:23 PM
When will the GOP learn? They sacrifice any hope of appealing to Hispanics, a large and growing group of voters, in order to fire up their base of white voters. And for what? With the Democratic majority, Sotomayor is assured of being approved for the Supreme Court. So, why are they shooting themselves in the foot with this manufactured controversy?
Posted by: Quippy | May 29, 2009 4:18 PM
heartburn....You and that spoon fed garbage emitted by the right wing fruitcakes is laughable. We see the extreme rabid with the likes of BillBo, Vannity, cry me a river Beck and the rest of the vermon in a concerted effort to smear once again. Limpbag 2 hours ago called Sotomayor the David Duke. The only good thing is America is wise to the lies and distortion from the swine like reports from Faux News.
Posted by: bill r. | May 29, 2009 3:23 PM
Thanks bill- as usual - a self serving post.You are really quick with your template answer including name calling ( Vermin? - really?) do you have any thing of substance to either challenge my post or support your point of view?
If Bush walked past a building that held one of this group ( or one like it)meetings you- and likely most of the MSM- would be screaming about the racism...
Why the pass for these guys?
Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 5:16 PM
Please let those idiots (republicants) keep up with these racist and rude comments...they sure do look good when they continue to rant.
OBAMA 2012
Posted by: Cindy | May 29, 2009 5:40 PM
Why the pass for these guys?
Posted by: heartburn | May 29, 2009 5:16 PM
I challenged you post. I provided documentation. Have you found any proof of your claims?
Posted by: Martinez | May 29, 2009 5:56 PM
heartburn....Funny...I went through the history in the swamp and didn't see a word about Palin and the AIP. Talk about self-serving. Here was a VP candidate belonging to a party for removing Alaska from the union, but not a word of concern from you on that. Hmmmm! Selective?
Posted by: bill r. | May 29, 2009 6:07 PM
The first job of a fascist is to turn the meaning of words and laws inside out. Therefore Sotomayor is the racist, and the racists that are attacking her are not the racists, even though they all belong to the the party that created the 'Southern Strategy'.
Posted by: C.Morris | May 29, 2009 9:30 PM
Billy,
I think Rush used the wrondg analogy comparing the nomination of Sotomayor to a nomination of David Duke. Rush should have compared the nomination of Sotomayor to the nomination of Senator Robert Byrd.
Posted by: Terry | May 29, 2009 11:16 PM
I'm loving it...Republicans just lost Florida and possibly Texas and California...Gente (y no mas ustedes), just remind people of all this in 2010 and 2012...If republicans would just demand that their senators investigate La Raza, it would be a dream come true (for the socially ignorant, it would be equivalent to investigating The N.A.A.C.P.)...that would really lose the republicans any hope of getting any hispanic vote for a generation (hispanics never forget and seldom forgive ...just ask our opinion of the Alamo to find out)
Posted by: walrus | May 31, 2009 6:31 AM
Walrus,
And remind voters of the treatment of Miguel Estrada.
Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 12:34 PM
Miguel Estrada is a hispanic republican.
Michael Steele is a black republican.
Michelle Malkin is an asian republican.
These people are not claimed by their races. They have received their 30 pieces of gold. If you will notice, only white republicans come to their defense and point them out as representatives of their race. Their own race never bring them up as samples of their races. We have names for them (names well known to each race that equal the name Judas). Those 3 need to look in the mirror and understand that they are not white and never will be no matter how badly they want to be. Jendal makes 4.
Posted by: walrus | May 31, 2009 6:35 PM
Walrus,
If I understood your ramblings, if you are not a white male, but you are a member of the Republican party, you are a sell out? Did I get that correct?
Posted by: Terry | May 31, 2009 8:46 PM
I'm not republican...the point was that THOSE people are sellouts.
Who cares how they treated Miguel Estrada, he was a sellout (did you miss the Judas reference?)
those people that I mentioned would turn in their own races to be accepted by whites. Only whites care about them and only when they need they to say whites are cool and not bigoted (not all, just conservatives)
A hispanic republican is like a jewish nazi. Jews don't trust him and nazis trot him out to say nazis are not bad ro the jews (sort like the blacks that foxnews searches for to say Obama is bad.)
Posted by: walrus | June 1, 2009 12:24 AM
For those of you that think La Raza is a harmless organization, look at this quote from its founder.
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/JoseAngelGutierrezQuote.html
Walrus,
I just wanted to make sure your statement was intended as I read it. I didn't want to call you ignorant or stupid on a
misunderstanding. But know that you have reiterated you point, I'll stand by ingnorant or stupid.
I guess Colin Powell is a sellout for 30 pieces of silver? I guess they don't teach critical thinking in school anymore
Posted by: Terry | June 1, 2009 7:49 PM
do you get ALL you information from white racist sites?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_%C3%81ngel_Guti%C3%A9rrez
"I guess they don't teach critical thinking in school anymore" (at least not in white supremists schools)
You know nothing of La Raza...I saw it being born ( the reasons and needs for it's birth) and the life and social acceptance from the political arena (forced at first)
http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/wvQ9tMV3Zm5/John+McCain+Addresses+La+Raza+Conference+John/0p0l7mtiDFX/John+McCain
Did you ever get swatted at school for speaking spanish? I did. And it was white administrators that did it to us throughout the southwest. There was a reason for inflamitory words at the birth of La Raza. The racial world was not the disneyland world YOU grew up in.
Posted by: walrus | June 1, 2009 10:38 PM
Walrus,
The wikipedia site shows what - that he's another Ward Churchill?
You saw LaRaza being born? You saw the reasons that the gringo needed to be killed? So you think killing the gringo is ok since you were swatted for speaking spanish? Was that a gov't employee that did that to you?
As long you equivaicate murder as a justifiable act to defend one from being swatted, that will say a lot more about you than me.
Posted by: Terry | June 2, 2009 8:23 PM
Look, stop being ignorant...La Raza was formed with the thought Ya Basta! (enough!)...just like the black panthers and N.A.A.C,P, in their beginings, retoric was inflamitory...yes, some did shout tihngs that were outrageous and not literal (they would have been arrested if they had gone through with it). And do you seriously believe that swatting was the ONLY thing racial going on???? That some just one example of a much bigger whole. Do you really believe that our parents would have allowed it if the oppression wasn't societal and have them oppessed as well? The situation at the time was that hispanic parents would not and could not stop it or sue. (if they could of, they would of). The word is Oppession. La Raza organized (just like Black Panthers) because of a serious need. Without the Black Panthers (making waves and saying, Kill Whitey) Obama would not be president right now. They forced the issue of equallity. La Raza's reason for being was the same. To force equality. E-Qua-Ity. Not higher or supreme, only EQUAL!!!
Posted by: walrus | June 3, 2009 11:53 AM
Walrus,
I cannot seriously believe you actually agree with the nonsense you are spouting. Obama is president because of efforts led by people like Dr. King, not because of the Black Panthers. Clearly you have no historical perspective at all: Back in May of 1967, shortly after the birth of the Black Panthers, their founders Eldridge Cleaver and David Hillard brutally murdered three police officers. That is your idea of "forcing equality?" The sort of radical action you are advocating and excusing is basically tantamount to terrorism. People like you do a wonderful job of putting Leftist hypocracy on display.
Posted by: Eugene Hamburger | June 3, 2009 5:38 PM
Chumley,
Thanks for making my point by comparing LaRaza to the Black Panthers, that was a racist organization 40 years ago and still is today.
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2670
You were rthe one that said swatting was going on - you didn't say anything about stabbings, beatings, rapes, etc... You said swatting!!!
I'm sure BO is going to be conforted to know that it was the Black Panthers and Huet Newton that led him to power. I'll bet that makes all the Kennedy's comfortable.
You are the walrus,
goo goo gajoob ga goo goo gajoob.
Posted by: Terry | June 3, 2009 8:34 PM
again, stop getting all your information from white supremist sites.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcleaver.htm
On 6th April, 1968 eight BPP members, including Cleaver, Bobby Hutton and David Hilliard, were travelling in two cars when they were ambushed by the Oakland police. Cleaver and Hutton ran for cover and found themselves in a basement surrounded by police. The building was fired upon for over an hour. When a tear-gas canister was thrown into the basement the two men decided to surrender. Cleaver was wounded in the leg and so Hutton said he would go first. When he left the building with his hands in the air he was shot twelve times by the police and was killed instantly.
he never murdered 3 cops (he didn't murder any). One of these days, you ought to read history that hasn't been rewritten by whites for whites.
Posted by: walrus | June 3, 2009 10:48 PM
Walrus,
Actually, I got all that information from the book "This Side of Glory" which is David Hillard's autobiography. That means he wrote it himself, in case you didn't know. What you fail to mention is that Hillard and others killed two police officers before being "ambushed" and then partaking in a 90 minute gunfight. Huey Newton also murdered a police officer several months before in October.
I am certain that, somehow, you will manage to claim that my source is racist. Or perhaps your next tactic will be to claim that I am a "race traitor" since anyone who is non-white and is not a race-matters liberal is clearly a "Judas" in your eyes.
On a side note, what a totally absurd idea. Suddenly a man can "betray his race" by having his own thoughts and opinions? Clarence Thomas "betrays" the black community by not agreeing with Leftist ideas? I can't get over how ridiculous that idea is. But what I really can't get over is how, in a country based upon freedom of expression, the idea of a "race traitor" has credence in Leftist thought.
Posted by: Eugene Hamburger | June 4, 2009 12:52 PM
"Or perhaps your next tactic will be to claim that I am a "race traitor" since anyone who is non-white and is not a race-matters liberal is clearly a "Judas" in your eyes."
the simple answer? Hell Yeah!
I can almost hear at least one of your ancestors saying, "They's aplanning a escape masta. I tells them no, don't do it. Masta won't like that. I get to come in the house, right masta? I watches out for you masta, all the time, I does."
Posted by: walrus | June 4, 2009 7:03 PM
Chumley,
Are you saying the Kansas City Star is a racist publication? You are deluted young lad with you hatred and bitterness.
Back to Sotomayer, if she wants to be on the Supreme Court of the ENTIRE United States, she should have to explain why she belongs to an organization that has a racist as its founder.
You are the walrus,
goo goo gajoob ga goo goo gajoob.
Posted by: Terry | June 4, 2009 9:10 PM
Walrus,
Thank you very much for your answer. What you wrote is, quite simply, one of the most narrow-minded, racist and bigoted remarks I have ever read. I particularly enjoy the way you have been openly intolerant in the name of tolerance. I am particularly amused by your use of racist "slave-language" and espousal of a racial segregation of ideals to prove how (in your mind) I am the racist, and you are not.
It always does me good to see the Left put its naked hatred on display; it helps reaffirm my own beliefs: the Leftist does not truly desire tolerance, he desires instead that everyone conform to his own rigid, narrow belief system.
I'll be sure to back up this web-page. It will be a great starting point for a paper.
BTW - I also enjoyed how you totally ignored how my "racist source" turned out to be Hillard's own autobiography.
Posted by: Eugene Hamburger | June 5, 2009 2:11 PM
look dude, look at the man in the mirror...your "buddies" the white conservative republican has a loooooong history of oppressing and robbing the dignity of non-whites. If you are really non-white, as you state, then you know nothing of history. White conservatives twenty years ago wouldn't allow YOU in their country club. 50 years ago could get away with killing you or raping or beating you. Spent most of the last couple of hundred years keeping you from equal rights, equal representation, equal dignity. HATES the fact that a Black Man (any black man including Powell) is president. These are your "chosen people". These people did your parent(s) wrong. They did your grandparents wrong. You turn your back on them when you choose these people over your own family. Democrats, on the other hand, while not perfect, have a history of helping non-whites (even died trying to get southern blacks the right to vote and migrants some dignity). What have white conservatives EVER done for your race?
Posted by: walrus | June 5, 2009 7:35 PM
Walrus,
I don't know why I persist in talking to you, but I just could not let your ignorance go unchallenged. It is rather humorous to me that you claim that I have no historical perspective. Please check the political party of this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels
And, of course, the political party of this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
I'd also like to point out that after the civil war, the first congressional members ever elected to office by a non-white majority were Republicans. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who is still in congress by the way, was a former recruiter for the KKK. He also opposed both Turgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas' nominations to the supreme court.
The 1964 civil rights act received more Republican votes than Democrats. The first piece of 20th century civil rights legislation was passed by Dwight Eisenhower.
The Jim Crow laws were all passed by Democrats and Woodrow Wilson re-instituted segregation in federal buildings even though the practice had been officially ended years earlier.
Have you ever read this quote?
"Republicanism means Negro equality, while the Democratic Party means that the white man is supreme."
That was said by Senator Ben Tillman, a prominent Democrat in the early 1900s and I think it about sums up my opinion.
Posted by: Eugene Hamburger | June 8, 2009 7:28 PM
Republican Liberals???
there's an oxymoron.
You and I both know that the Democrats and Republicans of the reconstuction era have no link to the party platforms of the modern era. Republicans of today are at complete odds with the beliefs of the Old Republicans (as are the Democrats with the Old Southern Conservative Democrats)...the fact that you never hear the phrases "Liberal Republican" and "Conservative Democrat" should be enough proof for even the hardest of learning...11%...11%...(one more time)11% is the amount of non-white Republicans, and those 89% whites are looking out for non-whites to their own detriment???? Do you REALLY believe that? Republicans of 1860s are the complete opposite of Republicans of 2009. To even suggest that the two have even the slightest in common (excluding the name) is incredulous. Republicans of the 1860s would not have called Sotomayor a racist.
Posted by: walrus | June 8, 2009 9:16 PM
I grow tired of arguing with you since your arguments are based around rhetoric, not fact. The truth is that Leftist ideals have been crippling the black family ever since the Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws. As recently as the 1960s the Great Society was passed as a way to break up black families. Welfare reform and reduction led by a conservative congress in the 1990s drastically reduced black poverty. Not Leftist ideas.
http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1595.cfm
Racism is alive and well in the Democrat party.
"There's less than 1% of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4% or 5% that is, are minorities. What is it in Washington [DC]? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with."
-Joe Biden, 2008
"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961
Kennedy later authorized wiretapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
-Lyndon B. Johnson, 1957
And, if you'll notice, I gave plenty of examples in my previous post that were from the 1960s - not the 1800s. I like how you conveniently ignore any facts which don't jive with your narrow worldview.
Posted by: Eugene Hamburger | June 9, 2009 2:31 PM