| 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: |
| Obama and Huckabee win Iowa | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 4 2008, 02:49 AM (995 Views) | |
| Dr. Noah | Jan 7 2008, 06:56 AM Post #61 |
|
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 | Jan 7 2008, 09:50 AM Post #62 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
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 | Jan 7 2008, 01:40 PM Post #63 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Jan 8 2008, 05:11 AM Post #64 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
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:
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:
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 .... 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.
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. 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:
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 | Jan 8 2008, 09:25 AM Post #65 |
|
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 | Jan 8 2008, 09:28 AM Post #66 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
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. ![]() EDIT: Funny, I've never known Rose to rant before, ever. She certainly didn't when responding to you. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 8 2008, 10:31 AM Post #67 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I was wondering about that comment as well. I saw no rant. I saw a well researched response to specific points. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jan 8 2008, 11:50 AM Post #68 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Minuet, your ranting aside here, I agree with you. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Jan 8 2008, 12:05 PM Post #69 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Jan 8 2008, 01:12 PM Post #70 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
I too only saw a well researched response to specific points. On less-civil forums 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 | Jan 8 2008, 09:08 PM Post #71 |
|
Shower Moderator
|
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 » |


.... let me remind you.



such a post is referred to as a "fact slap" - smacking someone upside the head with the facts.
9:22 AM Jul 11