Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Obama and Huckabee win Iowa
Topic Started: Jan 4 2008, 02:49 AM (995 Views)
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Something more recent then:

Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002 By JACK WHITE Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades

Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.


The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.

Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.

Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption.

Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts. It's that lack of candor, of course, that presents the biggest obstacle to George W. Bush's commendable and long overdue campaign to persuade more African-Americans to defect from the Democrats to the Republicans. It's doomed to fail until the GOP fesses up its past addiction to race-baiting, and makes a sincere attempt to kick the habit.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,399921,00.html
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Wichita
Jan 7 2008, 06:52 AM
Dr. Noah
Jan 7 2008, 07:04 AM
It's really surprising to me too that nobody from the current administration period is running.  Given all the successes this administration keeps reminding us of, surely there is someone to carry on the legacy approved of by so much of the population. 

And given Rice's work in the Middle East she would probably be the best candidate.  I don't see how her working to carry on with the work she's been working so hard at over the last several years as having anything to do with slavery.  I am perplexed by the comparison.

It's no secret that the Republican party backed segregation in the South, opposed Martin Luther King Jr., and generally the civil rights movement.

Dr.Noah
 
I don't see how her working to carry on with the work she's been working so hard at over the last several years as having anything to do with slavery.  I am perplexed by the comparison.


Did you forgot what you said Just yesteday (or Saturday)?

:headscratch:

Ok :shrug: .... let me remind you.

Here's what you said:

Dr.Noah
 
But people who wouldn't vote for him based on skin color are not likely to vote Democrat in the first place, so that probably won't hurt him at all.


Dr.Noah
 
Yes, I remember hearing a lot of talk about Powell and Rice perhaps running under the Republican ticket, but alas, no action. Talk is cheap.


For some reason, you seem to have the impression that the fact that Rice and/or Powell not running for President tells us something about ALL Republican voters. (See your first comment replicated here.)

In your second comment, you seem to be blaming the Republcan Party for their not running.

What you failed to point out is something that is no secret to anyone:

Both Rice and Powell have repeatedly and forcefully stated that they have no interest in running for President.

Now, there are many reasons that they have made the choice - it could be the multiple, multiple examples of them being called "house n_____" or "Uncle Tom" in publications (electronic and print) for their choice to be Repbulcans. It could be other reasons .... As I indicated earlier, they are both extremely successful in other fields and could easily enjoy their lives making a good income without even 1 tenth of the hassle.

The ONE thing that is clear is that they have CHOSEN not run for President.

So, if, as you claim, it tells us something about Republicans and the Republican Party that Rice and Powell are not the candidates, then you are saying that they should have forced Rice and/or Powell to do something that they have stated that they don't want to do.

Forcing someone to do something they do not want to do is slavery.
(That's where the reference to slavery becomes relevant.)

All the Republican Party (and Republicans) did was respect Rice and Powell's stated choices.

Dr.Noah
 
It's really surprising to me too that nobody from the current administration period is running.


:headscratch:

Define "from the current administration". I really have no idea what you are talking about.

With the exception of the sitting vice president, I can't really think of any administration that provides a candidate for President. Sure, various senators run (and they have in this election) and occasionally a former cabinet officer (which also happened in this cycle) .... :headscratch:

What are you talking about?

Dr.Noah
 
It's no secret that the Republican party backed segregation in the South, opposed Martin Luther King Jr., and generally the civil rights movement.


No, the only people it's a secret to is people who have actually studied American history.

*******************************************************

Dr. Noah, our country has a history of racism. That history belongs to all of us. Trying to say ONLY one group is responsible is a waste of time and energy. I certainly don't think the fact that neither Sharpton or Jackson won the Democratic presidential nomination reflects on ALL Democrats - or even on the Democratic Party.

Obama's victory in very white Iowa is a POSITIVE thing.

Rather than continue to make it a divisive issue, its time to build on the positives.

That's the message that I hear coming from Obama and one thing that I definitely agree with him on.

:clap:

Thank, Rose!

While I don't agree much with Obama (sounds too much like he recites Hallmark card platitudes), his showing in Iowa doesn't surprise me.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
Posted Image
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Dr. Noah
Jan 7 2008, 11:56 AM
Something more recent then:

Lott, Reagan and Republican Racism
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002 By JACK WHITE Southern Strategy: The race question has haunted Reagan and the GOP for decades

Here's some advice for Republicans eager to attract more African-American supporters: don't stop with Trent Lott. Blacks won't take their commitment to expanding the party seriously until they admit that the GOP's wrongheadedness about race goes way beyond Lott and infects their entire party. The sad truth is that many Republican leaders remain in a massive state of denial about the party's four-decade-long addiction to race-baiting. They won't make any headway with blacks by bashing Lott if they persist in giving Ronald Reagan a pass for his racial policies.


The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats. Yet it's with Reagan, who set a standard for exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door, that the Republican's selective memory about its race-baiting habit really stands out.

Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.

Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University. Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption.

Republican leaders and their apologists tend to go into a frenzy of denial when members of the liberal media cabal bring up these inconvenient facts. It's that lack of candor, of course, that presents the biggest obstacle to George W. Bush's commendable and long overdue campaign to persuade more African-Americans to defect from the Democrats to the Republicans. It's doomed to fail until the GOP fesses up its past addiction to race-baiting, and makes a sincere attempt to kick the habit.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,399921,00.html

Noah, did you read this piece before you posted it?

If so, please give us examples of the "coded racial messages" that this man claims were a hallmark of the Republican Party.

I am always fascinated when people claim that "everyone" "knows" what otherwise benign statements "really" mean. Why am I fascinated? Because I am one of "everyone" and I hardly ever "get" that message has been given. Even then I rarely understand correctly what the message is.

As it stands now, this piece is pretty incoherent since it lacks both examples and facts to support its premise.

First, he uses George Wallace as an example:

article
 
exploiting white anger and resentment rarely seen since George Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door,


Well, I recall George Wallace's bid for the Presidency. He was a DEMOCRATIC candidate.

But, I don't blame the Democratic Party or individual Democratic voters for the fact that he won several primary elections.

Then he states:

article
 
The same could be said, of course, about such Republican heroes as, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon or George Bush the elder, all of whom used coded racial messages to lure disaffected blue collar and Southern white voters away from the Democrats.


He then fails to list a single example of "coded messages" that either Goldwater or the first President Bush supposedly provided.

Goldwater was a highly divisive figure - but not for his racial policies. He was fiercely anti-communist and hawkish on war - which is not surprising given his military experience during WWII.

He also supported the Arizona (the state he represented) NAACP and several national initiatives on racial equality. What he didn't support was big government and that's the reason he did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

As for the first President Bush .... :headscratch:

Most of us can recall his administration - the one in which he enthusiastically signed the largest piece of civil rights legislation (ADA) seen in decades.

So then, let's look at the examples that he did provide about Reagan.

article
 
As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence.


Little known fact - before the three civil rights workers went south, they attended a short training at a northern university - the one where I happened to get my Bachelor's Degree.

So, Reagan supposedly was racially divisive because he made a speech in community where 3 young white people were brutally murdered more than a decade before.

:headscratch:

Sorry, I don't "get" that "coded message" either.

But then, I probably wouldn't have gotten Michael Dukakis "coded message" when he spoke at the same fair in the same place when he was running for President (as a Democrat).

Apparently, politicians running in the south make this fair a regular stop on their itinerary.

According to this guy, this is how Reagan spent the rest of his week:

Quote:
 
In reality, Reagan strategists decided to spend the week following the 1980 Republican convention courting African-American votes. Reagan delivered a major address at the Urban League, visited Vernon Jordan in the hospital where he was recovering from gunshot wounds, toured the South Bronx and traveled to Chicago to meet with the editorial boards of Ebony and Jet magazines.


As to the Bob Jones University incident - I would totally buy that Reagan was pandering to religous fundamentalists on that one, but "racial disharmony"? :rolleyes:

To me the question really is whether we will continue to exploit our racist past in this country or listen to politicians, like Obama, and start the healing.

I see a lot a like about Obama, but, think he would have been a much better candidate in 4 or 8 years. If Huckabee is the alternative, though, Obama will get my vote in 2008.







Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Well, first of all, you are incorrect, Wallace ran as an Independent. As to the rest of your rant, I'll have to wait until I have some more time to go through it.

Following two terms as Alabama's governor, George Wallace took his segregationist campaign nationally in 1968, running for president as a self-created American Independent.

http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3...3p.wallace.html
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Dr. Noah
Jan 8 2008, 09:25 AM
Well, first of all, you are incorrect, Wallace ran as an Independent.  As to the rest of your rant, I'll have to wait until I have some more time to go through it. 

Following two terms as Alabama's governor, George Wallace took his segregationist campaign nationally in 1968, running for president as a self-created American Independent.  

http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3...3p.wallace.html

Um, George Wallace ran for president as a Democrat in 1964, 1972, and 1976.

He only ran as an Independent in 1968.

That would make you selectively correct.

:wave2:

EDIT: Funny, I've never known Rose to rant before, ever. She certainly didn't when responding to you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Quote:
 
EDIT: Funny, I've never known Rose to rant before, ever. She certainly didn't when responding to you.


I was wondering about that comment as well. :headscratch:

I saw no rant. I saw a well researched response to specific points.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Minuet
Jan 8 2008, 10:31 AM
Quote:
 
EDIT: Funny, I've never known Rose to rant before, ever. She certainly didn't when responding to you.


I was wondering about that comment as well. :headscratch:

I saw no rant. I saw a well researched response to specific points.

Minuet, your ranting aside here, I agree with you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
38957
Jan 8 2008, 11:50 AM
Minuet
Jan 8 2008, 10:31 AM
Quote:
 
EDIT: Funny, I've never known Rose to rant before, ever. She certainly didn't when responding to you.


I was wondering about that comment as well. :headscratch:

I saw no rant. I saw a well researched response to specific points.

Minuet, your ranting aside here, I agree with you.

:realmad: :tantrum: :rollingpin: :drama: :tsktsk:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
RTW
Member Avatar
Vice Admiral
I too only saw a well researched response to specific points.

On less-civil forums :o such a post is referred to as a "fact slap" - smacking someone upside the head with the facts.

Either way, sometimes I feel fortunate that I'm not charged tuition for the all the knowledge shared here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Franko
Member Avatar
Shower Moderator
RTW
Jan 8 2008, 10:12 AM

Either way, sometimes I feel fortunate that I'm not charged tuition for the all the knowledge shared here.



Wait till you see our bill.


What, you think we let you post here for free ?


SisterTrek entertainment; you just can't put a price tag on it. ;)



Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus