home

Republicans Play the Race Card

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:32:36 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

E.J. Dionne writes today of how Bush and Republicans have played the race card both with respect to Alberto Gonzales and social security privatization. They want it both ways: No affirmative action, but every minority Republican nominee should get confirmed because otherwise it would be an insult to minorities everywhere.

Whenever a liberal raises concerns over whether a conservative initiative might damage the rights or interests of, say, African Americans or Latinos, that liberal is accused of being "politically correct" and playing the race card -- usually, just to make the sin sound really awful, off "the bottom of the deck." But increasingly, it is conservatives who are using political correctness to sidestep hard issues.

Recent example: Utah's Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch told Senators that "Every Hispanic in America is watching." Example two: Bush on social security:

African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people," Bush said at a White House Conference on Social Security in January. "That needs to be fixed."

Republicans also pulled out the card for Miguel Estrada:

To reject Estrada, said Sen. Charles Grassley, the normally mild-spoken Iowa Republican, "would be to shut the door on the American dream of Hispanic Americans everywhere."...Hatch neatly mixed the ideological and the ethnic. If Estrada were rejected, Hatch said, it would close the door to any nominee who was, "number one, Hispanic, number two, Republican, number three, possibly conservative and, number four, may have some ideas of his or her own."

Dionne says the practice dates back to the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas:

The new conservative political correctness actually goes back at least to the battle over Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's nomination. When Thomas was fighting charges that he had sexually harassed an employee, he declared his opponents guilty of a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves." Whatever you thought of the mess that surrounded Thomas's nomination, could he have chosen a more racially charged metaphor?

A few noticed the blatent hypocrisy regarding Estrada:

This was too much for House Democratic Caucus Chairman Bob Menendez. "Republicans and Senator Hatch in particular can't have it both ways," Menendez said at the time. "They can't blatantly call for the end of affirmative action by characterizing it as a quota system while, at the same time, demanding that we support all Hispanic nominees simply because they are Hispanic."

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, no? Dionne asks:

Why is it wrong for liberals to invoke the injustices of race (or class) when they talk about heath care, child care and taxes, but just ducky for Bush to make similar arguments on behalf of Social Security privatization?

< Is Canada the Answer? | LAPD Needs Policy Prohibiting Shooting at Moving Cars >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Republicans Play the Race Card | 55 comments (55 topical)
    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    Why is it wrong for liberals to... Duh! Because... (ready for it?) ...because they are liberals.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:33:51 AM EST
    E.J. is just upset that the Republicans have done what the Democrats thought only they were allowed to do.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    I'm amazed that people can't see the difference between what my wife calls "maddingly colorblind conservative appointments" and affirmative action. I believe one can make a case for affirmative action but it's important not to confuse the success of someone by their own merits from the general population measure. Having said that, don't you know why the R's keep pointing out that Weepy Babs, Drunken Ted, and Lurch slandered Condy WHO IS BLACK? It's votes, baby. And they're laughing all the way to the bank.... Gee, I miss the Democrat party. -C

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:38:17 AM EST
    Great line from song "Televison Drug of a Nation"- Willie Horton or will he not get elected. B

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#5)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:45:54 AM EST
    The diff is that the Dems are opposing so many candidates specifically on the basis of race. e.g.
    November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin -- "The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."[my emph]
    If the opposition were consistently based on merit, there would be no complant. But when it includes such overt racism by the Dems, it's pretty hard not to wonder at other, semi-overt occasions, such as the ol' KKK'er Robert Byrd opposing the first black woman to be nominated as sec. of state. If the situation were reversed, and Republicans were specifically opposing candidates based on race, and sending a known pillowcase-on-the-head pit bull to continue other such attacks, many Dems would undoubtedly see thru it and complain, and rightly so. Racism is racism.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:41:32 AM EST
    ras - Lol! Who are we paraphrasing today? Lets see- run down for me again that long and venerable tradition of the conservative right fighting racism and descimination in the U.S - you guys were always right there at the forefront of the struggle,I just cant remember ANYTHING you did.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    No dice, TL. What is Aff Act but a euphemism for race quotas? Thus it is the Dems who are racist here. What is the Dem stalling on judicial appts but obstructionism. The Dems then say Reps accuse them of it because of racism. Racists: Dems score 2 Reps score 0 You can fool some of the people some of the time...

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#8)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    Jondee, ??? Huh ??? In the immortal words of Paolo Rossi, you're not even wrong.... But just for fun: 1. I'm not a Republican 2. I'm not an American (except in the geographical sense of living in N. America) 3. I do believe it was a Republican president named Lincoln who ended slavery 4. I do believe it ws another Republican president named Eisenhower who ended segregation 5. I do believe that a greater percentage of Congressional Dems voted against the Civil Rights Act than did Republicans. 6. I do believe the racist Dixiecrats were - now, correct me if this was not so, Jondee - yes, Democrats. 7. I do believe it was a Republican president named Bush who appointed the first black Sec. Of State, as well as the first black woman to that post. Insistence, as I keep reminding you, is not the same as argument. Hope your memory improves. Cheers.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    ras do you not know the development of political parties in America? It seems you do not try reading Aldrich's work. and conservatives complain we think they are stupid. When you rattle off facts like that you make it a tough argument to counter.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#10)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 11:35:40 AM EST
    GregZ, It must have been a very tough argument to counter, since you avoided doing so entirely :) p.s. Ever noticed how the parties have crossed the divide into each other's territory (for the first, 2nd or 3rd time, depending on one's interpretation) just in the last generation or so? That's why so many libs are now trending Republican: the R's have become the root-causes party, the pro-democracy party, the party that most rewards merit instead of race, etc. Wonder how long before the books come out about that so, when our arguments run dry, we can tell people to read them? The Dems are the reactionaries now. Before you rebut, think hard about the meaning of that word.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#11)
    by soccerdad on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:03:42 PM EST
    ras - god where do you get your nonsense from. newsmax, frontpage, delusions? Why don't you try and prove some of your assertions.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#12)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    Soccerdude/dad, I did provide my assertions, in point form. If you'd care to rebut them one at a time, I'd love to see you try. So far, per my initial comment to Jondee, I've seen a lot of insistence, but somehow no one who's been against my points - and very straightforward points they were at that, no tricks involved - has dared to argue against them. Funny, that :) Btw, faux-superiority replies - e.g. "well, your points are so stupid it's ... well it's beneath me to argue them" followed by the obligatory nervous "lol" and a hasty exit don't count as argument. Or you could always ask TL to enforce a stricter quota on the nasty right-winger who says that Lincoln was a Republican. Whatever suits your abilities, man.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:16:31 PM EST
    It is true that Republicans like Lincoln advanced civil rights. Yet somehow, in the 1950s and 1960s, things changed. What happened? A little history, courtesy of Wikipedia: "In 1948, a group of Democratic congressmen, led by Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, split from the Democrats in reaction to an anti-segregation speech given by Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, founding the States Rights Democratic or Dixiecrat Party, which ran Thurmond as its presidential candidate. The Dixiecrats, failing to deny the Democrats the presidency in 1948, soon dissolved, but the split lingered. The party's principles were revived by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate. Goldwater was notably more conservative than previous Republican nominees like Dwight Eisenhower; Goldwater's opponent in the primary election, Governor Nelson Rockefeller of New York, was widely seen as representing the more moderate, Northern wing of the party. Rockefeller's defeat in the primary is seen as the beginning of the end for moderates and liberals in the Republican party." Yes, a lot of Democrats jumped ship... when their party stopped being racist enough for them, it looks like. And where did they go? The Republican party! Why? Because Nixon let them know that their views were welcome and supported there. So is somebody talking out their "ras"? Also, you think DEMOCRATS are the original obstructionists? Get a load of this: "For example, Clinton’s nomination of Richard A. Paez to the Ninth Circuit had been pending for three and a half years, and his nomination of Marsha L. Berzon—also to the Ninth Circuit—had been pending for almost two years. [82] There had also been long delays on nominations to the conservative Fourth Circuit. No African American had ever served on the Fourth Circuit (covering North and South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland), even though it was the federal circuit with the highest percentage of African American population in the country. [83] Clinton was determined to appoint an African American there, but conservative Republicans led by Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina had blocked every African American nominee that Clinton had submitted. [84] Three never received a hearing. [85] A fourth, James A. Beaty, Jr., was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but his nomination was blocked from receiving a vote of the full Senate. Helms claimed that filling the four vacancies on the fifteen-member appeals court was unnecessary and would actually make the court less efficient (a position he reversed when George W. Bush became president). [86] And, in October 1999, the Senate had outright rejected a judicial nominee by a full vote of the Senate for the first time since Robert Bork in 1987. The nominee, Ronnie White, had been tapped by Clinton to fill a federal District Court post in Missouri. The Senate Judiciary Committee approved him in a bipartisan vote, but he became caught up in the judicial log-jam that stalled his nomination for the next two years. When his name finally went to the floor of the Senate for a vote, Missouri Senator John Ashcroft led the opposition, calling White, who is an African American, “pro-criminal.” [87] The Senate defeated White along a party-line vote. Later, when President Bush nominated Ashcroft to be Attorney General, Ashcroft had to respond to repeated allegations that he had distorted White’s record. [88] "Clinton rejected suggestions that he make judicial recess appointments when the Senate adjourned in late 1999, but he did make nine recess appointments to a variety of non-judicial posts. Sen. Inhofe felt that two of the recess appointments, Sarah M. Fox to the National Labor Relations Board and Stuart E. Weisberg to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, violated Clinton’s agreement to clear recess appointments with Senate leaders in advance. [89] Once again he put a hold on all of Clinton’s judicial nominations, this time arguing that none should be confirmed for the remaining year of Clinton’s term. Apparently among those who initially supported Inhofe’s hold was John Ashcroft. [90] Senate Majority Trent Lott, however, rejected Inhofe’s position, and convinced the Senate to confirm two judges in February 2000. [91] Still, the Senate confirmed only thirty-nine of the eighty-one judicial nominees that Clinton sent to the Senate in 2000. In all, forty-two judicial nominees remained unconfirmed when Clinton left office in January 2001. Thirty-eight of them never received a hearing. [92] One of Clinton’s last acts as president was to resort to a judicial recess appointment, making Richmond lawyer Roger Gregory the first African American ever to sit on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. [93]" Doctor, heal thyself...

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    soccerdad.... I hate to say this,...but the points raz cited in his post are all true. It's historical fact....plain & simple. We await your sure fire re-buttals & the FACTS to support them.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    thanks Web you have more energy than I.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#16)
    by jondee on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:45:59 PM EST
    ras - Only someone with an unbelievably sclerotic historical perspective would consider the American Democratic Party the left. Catch the 68 convention did you? Btw,attempting to lamely connect the party of Lincoln,or even Eisenhauer(would W acknowledge a miliary industrial complex?),in a pathetic attempt to do credit to your neo-con heroes is insulting to anyone who has a GENUINE interest in discovering how we arrived at the point we're at now.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#17)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    Webmacher, (btw, before I begin, I'll note that I genuinely appreciate that you actually put forth an argument; it puts you a cut above the sheeple in my books, so thanks) Now, let's have at! So your thesis is primarily that the "bad Dems" went over to the R's in and around the 50's? Counters, in no particular order: 1.Um, the swing didn't happen till many years later, really, under Reagan, long after most of the worst racism had been purged from both parties (Strom Thurmond & Robert Byrd being respective examples of leftover garbage from either side). 2. George Wallace 3. Deseg under Eisenhower 4. Greater % of congressional Dems voting against civil rights a.o.t. Republicans (look it up if you doubt me) 5. Bush appointing more hi-level minorities than any Dem pres. 6. Evidence cited earler of overt opposition to appointees based specifically on race (e.g. Estrada, because his is latino) Note that the swing of Dems to the Republicans did not occur until after the older, more racist guard, had largely died off - i.e. they R's wouldn't have them till they changed. Neither party has clean hands On balance, I'd prefer the R's on this issue. I understand it's natural to wanna believe only the best of "your" side, but history says otherwise. And the Dems today are less of what you want and believe in, for this particular issue at least, than the R's. If you can help from the inside to drag them back out of the "let's oppose him if he's latino" mentality, more power to you. But that's the case today and you've got your work cut out for you. While you're at it, retire Robert Byrd. Are you really gonna keep the big Kleagle on your team while you argue for historic Dem color-blindness? p.s. Remember, Wikipedia is now essentially a group blog, not a reference work anymore. I admire what they try to do, but on political matters they are getting abused from all directions and so increasingly ignored. This is a crying shame, but is so and, unfortunately, necessary: of all the "old" publishing functions, the editorialist and the editor are all that will remain. Wikipedia is lacking on the latter function. Better to return to firsthand facts - e.g. my args above - than to rely on anonymous editorial opinion such as those you cite, since they always seem to be overly selective these days: e.g. the Dixiecrat members remained Dems even after their movement failed.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#18)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    Eisenhower "ended segregation"? How so? By sitting in a chair while the Supreme Court ruled on Brown vs. the Board of Education? I will grant that Eisenhower did what a President should do by sending the National Guard to protect students entering Little Rock high schools. But when it comes to showing political courage in bringing an end to segregation, I'll take Harry Truman over Eisenhower any day.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#19)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    Quaker, Both were pretty good, actually, Eisenhower thorughout his career; Truman in his later years, including his presidency (he let himself be way too beholden to his crooked puppet-masters early on, IIRC, but changed that for the better over the years). And yeah, sending troops to fight racism (as did Lincoln in a much larger way) is a pretty definitive statement. He coullda instead wimped out and gone for some sort of "don't ask, don't tell" kinda policy, you know. But he didn't.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#20)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    You miss my point, ras. Eisenhower initiated no action to "end segregation" as you claim. He sent the National Guard to enforce a Supreme Court decision. Truman, by executive order, brought about an end to segregation in the military.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    ras web didn't put forth an argument, he stated historical facts.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#22)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:46:40 PM EST
    GregZ, Do you have any idea how much fun it is to watch you giuys try to pretend that Dems are wonderful cuz they're really Republicans and so all the good the R's did was really the D's in disguise and so cuz Goldwater was a conservative and Robert Byrd was with the KKK, well, the whole shebang is just true, OK? With the exception of Web, that is, the only one who has yet dared to offer a full argument (honorable mention to Quaker for his Eisenhower v. Truman comparison, which I think reflects strengths of both those men; interesting to see someone using the moniker of "Quaker" state a pref for the only man in history to order a nuke bombing of civilans, but I take that as a sign that he does his own thinking). I may disagree - and do, strongly - with many of their conclusions, but hey man, at least they step to the plate. That's how I distinguish the believers from the posers. It's pretty much a fail-safe test.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    I appreciate your kind words, ras. To continue: Regarding the Southern Strategy: OK, if Wikipedia doesn't work for you, how 'bout in-no-way-liberal NewsMax? In 1964, the Republicans changed their Southern strategy to a new model – that of direct support for Southern opposition to desegregation. This strategy cost them the outer South, but gained them the Deep South. It also severed the party from blacks, and that proved to be permanent. On the other hand, by getting 48.7 percent of Southern votes, Goldwater became the first Republican in history to do better in the South than the North. And the South's share of the national vote rose to 17.4 percent. Nixon played a careful version of the Southern strategy in 1968, combining Ike's class strategy with Goldwater's racial appeal. In 1968, riots in northern cities had nationalized the race issue – so it was possible to gain Northern as well as Southern votes by a mild racial appeal. George Wallace took all the Goldwater states except South Carolina (led to the Republicans by no less than Strom Thurmond) while also taking Arkansas. Johnson was able to deliver his home state of Texas to his vice president, Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey got a big infusion from the newly enfranchised black vote, while losing the great majority of Southern whites and running third behind Nixon and Wallace in the Southern popular vote. I'm fascinated to hear that "the swing of Dems to the Republicans did not occur until after the older, more racist guard, had largely died off - i.e. they R's wouldn't have them till they changed." I'm also terribly concerned about this widespread trend of racist Democrats blocking judicial nominees of color, as evidenced by... er, one poorly-worded memo. I eagerly await specific citations to back up your claims, or to counter my unpleasant memories of the Reagan years. Jesse Helms was around a good long time, wasn't he? And Strom Thurmond? For that matter, who can forget this incident involving Trent Lott a couple years ago? "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party. Incidentally, here's some more information about that notorious memo ras quoted from Spinsanity here, if anyone's interested. I'm not going to sit here and claim Democrats are perfect saints. I'm certainly not going to defend Robert Byrd's past. I happen to disagree with him on quite a few things, actually. However, as I said to somebody a few months ago, "You got the party that did really screwed up things 30 or 40 years ago, and then you got the party who is doing really screwed up things now... I think I'd pick the one who hasn't been doing horrible things as recently, wouldn't you?" Not a great choice, but we rarely get great choices. Oh, and: "firsthand facts"? To (mis)quote The Princess Bride, "I do not think that means what you think it means." Yes, everything is subjective to a degree, but some things are more "reality based" than others. I always believe that it's good to provide citations and links. We've all got access to Google, no?

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    ras I never defended the dems in this thread so I am not sure where you are getting that idea. I only critiqued your historical in-accurate argument regarding the change of political parties over time. You are contradicting basic facts with little support, re-writing history without evidence whatsoever. This is not debate. You made ill convinced comparisons as jondee at 2:45 pointed out. Forgive me if we find it a waste of time to "discuss" things that are found in just about every text book on American history. Try reading a book instead of goggling to your favorite conservative web site.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    Hey, don't knock Google! It's the other half of my brain! :-) Books are good too though. (I may have recommended this one before: A Problem From Hell: America in the Age of Genocide. It's excellent, though I have to say it's making me mad at Republicans and Democrats alike!)

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#26)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:55:28 PM EST
    honorable mention to Quaker for his Eisenhower v. Truman comparison, which I think reflects strengths of both those men; interesting to see someone using the moniker of "Quaker" state a pref for the only man in history to order a nuke bombing of civilans The nuke thing? Harry was wrong about that. But we were discussing race, not nuclear war. Those are different subjects, aren't they? Now let's move on to the Civil Rights Act. You're correct that a larger percentage of Dems in both houses of Congress voted against passage of the 1964 Civil Rights act. (And congratulations on stating that correctly; I've recently corrected someone who insisted NO Republicans voted against it.) This provides an opportunity to illustrate how a President initiates action on behalf of citizens. A fellow named Johnson made the Civil Rights Act a White House priority and used his considerable legislative experience and skill to guide the bill to passage over the objections of members of his own party, especially those from his own region of the country. Refresh my memory. When did he become a Republican? And please, let's not pretend the southern bloc of backwards Democrats represent the state of today's party. Those fellows bolted the party--largely as a result of Johnson's support for civil rights--and joined which party that welcomed them?

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#27)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:56:57 PM EST
    Bonus points, ras: On signing the Civil Rights Act (or was it the Voting Rights Act? I forget.) Johnson is reputed to have made a callous and cynical summation of its effect. What did he say?

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 03:59:42 PM EST
    "Doctor, heal thyself..." Obstructionism began under Clinton, Web? Were you born yesterday? You've been "borked".

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#29)
    by cp on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:03:18 PM EST
    ras, as usual, you aren't anywhere close to being correct. lincoln didn't end slavery in the united states, that occurred with ratification of the 13th amendment, after the war was over, and after lincoln was dead and buried. the emancipation proclimation, of which i'm sure you're thinking, only freed the slaves in the states then in rebellion. that was only the 11 states of the confederacy. elsewhere in the country, slavery remained legal until after the war ended. further, lincoln sent no troops to fight slavery, he sent troops to keep the union intact. that's a fact, not conjecture. while he had no love for the institution, he also had no intention of starting a war over it. had it not been for the secession of the southern states, and the attack on fort sumter, there would have been no civil war solely over the issue of slavery. though, ultimately, that was the root cause of the war, lincoln didn't start it. as gregz noted, try actually reading a book, instead of merely parroting what some conservative blog tells you.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    et al - Do you realize that when you talk about Nixon and Goldwater you are talking 36 and 40 years ago, respectively? Interestingly enough, there never was, and still isn't, strong local Repub organizations in the south. They tend to vote Repub nationally and Dem locally. I know that But if any of you think the average black isn't seeing that Bush is doing while the Dems are (trying) to block, then you are seriously in need of help. BTW - Quaker - I think it was Eisenhower's AG that came in on the side of the angels. You may not remember, but that was pretty heady stuff in the mid 50's.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    ras wrote, "And yeah, sending troops to fight racism (as did Lincoln in a much larger way) is a pretty definitive statement. He coullda instead wimped out and gone for some sort of "don't ask, don't tell" kinda policy, you know. But he didn't." The Civil War was about ending racism? Have you never read Lincoln's own words on racial equality? I can appreciate the visceral fortitude evidenced in many actions, even those by politicians ,but don't confuse motives.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    Um... I'm really trying to figure out what your point is, Ace. Especially since I never said "obstructionism" started under Clinton. I merely pointed out it preceded the Democrats under Bush, which you failed to deny. I don't want to put words in your mouth either, but when you say "borked", are you implicitly defending Robert Bork, who said there was no contitutional right to privacy? Or are you referring to the Swedish Chef? (I was born long enough go to remember the Muppet Show quite fondly.) "Ductur, heel thyselff..." Oobstroocshuneesm begun under Cleentun, Veb? Vere-a yuoo burn yesterdey? Yuoo'fe-a beee "burked". Bork Bork Bork!

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:32:46 PM EST
    "But if any of you think the average black isn't seeing that Bush is doing while the Dems are (trying) to block, then you are seriously in need of help." If you want to claim that the Democratic party shouldn't take black votes for granted, I agree. If you want to say they should be doing more than they're doing, rather than coasting on memories of the Civil Rights movement, I'm right there with you. It's different times and there are different issues now. On the other hand, as long as Bush pushes ideas like Social Security privization (and tells black people they should like it because they die earlier and don't get as much under the current system!), well... don't you think people notice that kind of thing too?

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#34)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:37:21 PM EST
    cp, Har har, good one! Lincoln didn't actually end slavery cuz, after leading the fight in the civil war, he was killed for his actions before he could actually sign the final act! Wow, you got me there, fella! As for the reason for the war - consider: Lincoln fought the war over slavery (he couldda backed down on that pt at any time and avoided the war; Dred Scott anyone?) while simultaneously downplaying it as a reason. This is a classic example of speak softly but carry a big stick. If he wasn't fighting over slavery, why fight? I repeat: he couldda held the union together withouta shot being fired "merely" by allowing slavery, yet still he chose to fight over it. Yeesh. Never mind reading a book - read between the lines! Quaker, "But we were discussing race, not nuclear war. Those are different subjects, aren't they?" Yes, which was my point. I was paying you a compliment; this might have caught you off guard, methinks. As for LBJ - a not-so-loveable bastard, that guy, but he did the right thing on Civil Rights and deserves credit for it, as do the R's and D's who supported it at the time. AS fopr the "southern bloc", note that they did NOT switch over to the R's till long after the era you speak of. They stuck w/the Dems until, essentially, society had broadly renounced racism, the D's in q did too, and only then would the R's have them. Prior to that, their only home was w/the Dems. As for LBJ's callous comment, do you mean his lament that the Dems'd lose the South for a generation? They didn't, though, which is my point. The percentage of white conservatives in the South who identified themselves as Republicans was just 40% in 1980, when Reagan was first elected president.
    Lyndon Johnson was supposed to have remarked, on signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, We have lost the South for a generation. Interesting figures on those terribly progressive Democrats. 82% of Republican Senators voted for the Civil Rights Act while only 69% of Democrat Senators did: in the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Act compared to 61% of Democrats. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against.
    As I noted earlier to Web, neither party has a lock on virtue, but for the period in q, I'd lean to the R's on this issue.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    Let's get a few things straight about the Republican and Democratic parties, people. 1) Eisenhower and Lincoln don't get the credit they deserve for what they did for black America. However, don't believe that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts, or because they were sympathetic to our cause. They did it because it was the right thing to do, and neither of them would've cared less if they weren't in their position of power. 2) Southern Democrats were the ones who opposed Johnson's sweeping civil rights legislation in the 1960s, but guess what happened to those good ol' boys afterwards? They became Republicans (except for Robert Byrd). 3) I'll give credit to Bush where it's due, as he had three black cabinet members and has made Condi Rice his Secretary of State. Problem is, most black people aren't impressed by that, because they've see folks like Colin Powell, Rod Paige and Rice as shills for a Republican agenda that threatens to set civil rights for everyone back two centuries. And we know what happens to shills, right Anderson Williams?

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:23:31 PM EST
    Interesting that this started as an assertion that many Democrats are opposing so many judicial nomininations on the basis of race today, in the 21st century. This claim has been backed up by one memo and a discussion of what the Democrats did in 1964 and what the Republicans did during the Civil War. (Bork bork bork!)

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#37)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    PPJ: I think it was Eisenhower's AG that came in on the side of the angels. You may not remember, but that was pretty heady stuff in the mid 50's. Eisenhower allowed his AG, Herbert Brownell to argue the case. However, Eisenhower himself disassociated himself publicly with Brownell's arguments. (Looky here.) Privately, Eisenhower later questioned whether it was smart to desegregate schools in the South. If Eisenhower deserves credit, it's for appointing Earl Warren as Chief Justice. ras: Correct comment. I have it as "I think we've delivered the South to the Republican party for my lifetime and yours." (Said to Bill Moyers). His meaning is clear. His signing the bill would have southern racists voting Republican for years. Didn't actually happen you say? I was unaware the South is still regarded as a Democratic stronghold. So let me put a point on this. You credit Eisenhower with "ending segregation" when he did very little and publicly distanced himself from that. Truman and Johnson both took politically unpopular positions to actually get the job done.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#38)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:31:07 PM EST
    They stuck w/the Dems until, essentially, society had broadly renounced racism, the D's in q did too, and only then would the R's have them. The 'Pubbies would only take them after they renounced racism? Phaw! I'm getting old and my memory is failing. Maybe you can help me recall when fellows like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond and John Stennis "renounced" racism.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 05:53:06 PM EST
    "Posted by Claxton: "Eisenhower and Lincoln don't get the credit they deserve for what they did for black America." They don't? Quite clearly Lincoln gets a great deal of deserved credit for the Emancipation Proclamation. " However, don't believe that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts," Lincoln quite clearly did, though the $$R "scholars" have had considerable success telling people otherwise. Lincoln started the war a racist of his times (though he was never hardcore). By the end of the war, by the EP, he was no longer a racist, having been changed by the great suffering of the war, the loss of his son Tad, his wife's enormous grief which was only assuaged by her slave (a fact not lost on Abm.), and the work they both did in the Arlington hospital. The constant revisionism of the $R 'scholars' has damaged the country, along with Nixon's 'President's Day' elimination of one of our most important national practices (celebrating the b'days of the great Presidents, a practice which should be expanded). Bush won't be a great president a single day of his life; he was never elected yet to that office, and he lied the country into war, without, like Johnson, anything else to hang his hat on except taxcuts for his supporters, and the rape of the Republic.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#41)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:10:34 PM EST
    As usual, the left's cry of "racism" means "I don't have any facts." Paul in LA. Say you're right (you're not) about Iraqi civilian casualties. How is that racism? For that to be racism, you'd have to demonstrate the reason the US invaded was based on hate of Arabs. Like in Tunisia in 1943. Crap. Get a better schtick.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    Eisenhower regreted appointing Warren as Chief Justice. He had relied upon Warren's prior record believing that he would be far more conservative than he was. This is not to demean what Eisenhower did as president, just to state the facts. Lincoln originally said that he would save the union. If that means freeing the slaves, then he would free the slaves. If he could save the union without freeing the slaves, then he would not have freed the slaves. The real issue here is not racism. None of the Democrats have said that any of these appointments should not be approved because they are lesser persons or less deserving because of their race. Unfortunately, both parties are willing to consider the value of race in staking out their political positions. The Republicans obviously considered the political capital that would come from submitting a black or hispanic with the right conservative values. The Republicans could then reap political capital by claiming racism when the appointment was opposed. The Democrats also considered race in the Estrada appointment fearing that opposition to the appointment could cost hispanic votes as serve as an excuse for Republicans to claim racism. There is enough cynicism for both parties. We saw the same thing with Catholicism. The Republican asserted that Catholics need not apply for court appointment because of the Catholic position on abortion. The Democrats voiced concern that the appointee wanted to know if the appointee would follow Supreme Court precedent in Roe v. Wade. Kerry found that being at odds with the established position of his church would cost votes. Both parties understand that race and religion impact politics. Right or wrong, both parties will calculate the political impact in their actions.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#44)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 06:27:12 PM EST
    Correction on my post at 6:31. John Stennis never took the trouble to change his party affiliation. In spite of this, he had no trouble allying with the policies of the GOP in regards to Vietnam, states' rights, and many other issues.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:06:26 PM EST
    Claxton - Could we have a list of the US Congressmen and/or Senators that switched parties? I mean you seem just so intense.... webmacher - Are you damning Bush because he spoke the truth? cr - Goldwayer campagined against the Civil Rights Act? Now I confess to being out of the country for the years of '64 and '65, and somewhat otherwise engaged, but I don't remember that. Since you are so wonderfully verbose, perhaps you can share with us a link or two showing that point? I do remember LBJ telling us if we voted for Goldwater we would be engaged in a terrible land war in Asia. Gee, I wish all those people had listened to LBJ. BTW - Are you always so cuddly? Why should anyone just shut the f*uck up because you wish it? Paul In LA - This is an excercise in waste. Can you prove the 100,000 number?

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#46)
    by ras on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 07:23:50 PM EST
    Paul in LA, Sorry to hit you w/the facts, but the 100,000 dead in Iraq is a bogus figure, long since discredited, and was based on a political report published in the Lancet. Its authors admitted they were merely trying to influence the election. Remember, too, that of those who were killed, many were killed by the Baathists, or put in the line of fire by same. Note too that based on Saddam's long-term average, the war has already saved a net number of lives by getting him outta there. BTW, when the bombing of Baghdad began, I recall that the northern end of the city was unsecured - people could come & go. Yet even then there was no exodus, almost as if the people had already seen that the US was not out for blood, merely to defeat Saddam. Would you have an alternative explanation? If the war were racist, as you incorrectly attribute, Bush could subjugate Iraq at any time by engaging in an open slaughter. If your thesis were correct, he would have done so by now. But he didn't and he doesn't. Instead, he brings them democracy, which they embrace. Democracy, I might add, that the Left fought tooth and nail to prevent. At least the Iraqis on the ground know better - that's why they voted. For all the Left's best efforts, they were impotent to stop this, which I think explains most of the anger. The elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq were a stunning success, hardly the mark of a racist endeavor. Lastly, as a further measure of the accuracy of your info, consider the Left's track record of predictions on Iraq: ... 250k Iraqi deaths? ... nope ... 1000s of dead American soldiers? ... nope ... massive refugee crisis? ... nope ... the arab street will rise up? ... nope ... increasing terrorism in the US? ... nope ... An Iranian takeover? ... nope An accusation of racism is merely empty name-calling, and increasingly is seen as such by the US voters. I won't bother reviewing the Left's record at predicting their behavior either; you already know the score, even as you're working out how it happened.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:48:14 PM EST
    "Are you damning Bush because he spoke the truth?" Bush did misinterpret the actual statistics, whether intentionally or not, and made it sound like there was a greater gap in life expectancy between blacks and whites than there actually is at retirement time. (There is a bigger gap at a younger age for a variety of reasons) From AARP: "Life expectancy is the average number of years of life remaining to a person at a particular age. In order to assess the rates of return from Social Security, life expectancy at birth is a less useful measure than, for example, life expectancy at age 40, when most people are working; or life expectancy at 65, when many workers choose to retire. An average white male has a life expectancy of 74.8 years at birth, 37.1 years at age 40, and 16.3 years at age 65. The average black male has a life expectancy of 68.2 years at birth, 32.3 additional years at age 40, and 14.5 more years at age 65. At age 65, the difference in life expectancy between white and black males is less than two (1.8) years. [emphasis mine]" (I'm sure I don't need to remind you that AARP backed Bush's Medicare plan, so it's not like they're rabid partisans.) Also, if the gap in life expectancy, however much it is, bothers him so much, then isn't the answer to do something about healthcare? Or does that simply not fit into the budget? "1000s of dead American soldiers? ... nope" Just when would the numbers start to bother you? 1500, which we're close to? Just curious. (I'd be careful about talking about predictions (some of which were made by conservatives) which didn't come true, if I were you.)

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#49)
    by Richard Aubrey on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 08:59:48 PM EST
    Webmacher. Couple of points. You're right about the age gap. Still, if you multiply an average, or somewhat below average retirement by 1.8 years, it's still enough money that, if it weren't a Bush point, you'd be upset. However, SS also includes a survivors' benefit, if the deceased has kids under age eighteen, with an additional benefit for the person caring for those under sixteen. The person has to be a worker and the kids have to be dependents. Those black men who die at an early age of the various issues we needn't review here are disproportionately not workers and the kids are disproportionately not their dependents for SS purposes. So they lose out on the survivors' benefits, too. As to the deaths and the predictions, you got busted. Not that smart, Web. You took the point about wrong predictions and implied that the other party doesn't care about dead American soldiers. I know. You must be a liberal. How could I have missed that? BTW. The Gulf War had negative US casualties compared to the same number of guys in peacetime over the same period. There are training accidents and auto accidents and so forth. Safer to be in the Gulf in Desert Shield/Storm than in the States. It's more complicated, but an analyst did some math and discovered that, compared with the Carter years, our casualties are lower in Iraq. Of course, that some happen in combat makes a different political issue, but they're dead nevertheless. Same bereaved family. Different opportunities for liberals.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:41:11 PM EST
    Hello Richard Aubrey (mind if I call you "Dick"?) As to the deaths and the predictions, you got busted. Not that smart, Web. So were the numbers I cited wrong? Show me. Post a link. Back it up. My point stands. If Bush is concerned about life expectancy for black people, he could use his "political capital" to try to do something about improving it, rather than use it as a crude selling point for his program. I do have to give you credit for raising the survivors' benefit issue. Now will you explain how Bush's plan does anything to safeguard those benefits? Seems like his administration has been rather mute on this point. You took the point about wrong predictions and implied that the other party doesn't care about dead American soldiers. I know. You must be a liberal. How could I have missed that? When somebody claims that a prediction that thousands of soldiers would die didn't come true because "only" 1450 soldiers have died so far, well, it's going to make me wonder what they're being so chipper about. And soldiers were better off fighting in the Gulf than staying at home? Tell that to the vets living with Gulf War Syndrome. Oh, I am sorry. You think I'm using their health problems to make a political point? So totally different from Bush using black life expectancy to sell them a dubious program? And, why yes, I am a liberal and I'm proud of it. For your convenience in identifying future liberals you may come across, they also tend to be interested in the world at large, they give money to causes they care about, they are members of the "reality-based community", and they don't want to drag the country kicking and screaming back into the stone age. They tend to cause an allergic reaction in some unlucky individuals. If you find you are one of them, your best recourse is to retreat as quickly as possible.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 08, 2005 at 09:44:42 PM EST
    Here's a recent article about a panel discussion at Stanford University. It included "Les Roberts, an epidermiologist at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health." He "traveled to Iraq last September with a medical team to calculate some of the public health issues that have arisen after the invasion, publishing a study upon his return in the British medical journal The Lancet." The article continues: "Roberts said the team estimated at least 100,000 civilians had died at the hands of U.S. military since the invasion, compared with the 16,000 deaths estimated by the Iraq Body Count. He added that violent deaths were much more common after the U.S. occupation than before. “If we believed that the people who invaded Iraq had a positive motive, than the news of 100,000 deaths should produce a response of contrition.” "While Roberts said that Iraqis expressed anger toward United States military for their actions in Iraq, he added that they were still glad to see Saddam Hussein ousted." I don't know if the study is accurate or not. One study really can't prove anything definitively, and bias is always a concern. But I don't see anywhere in this article where Roberts retracted his findings and "admitted they were merely trying to influence the election." If anyone involved in the study has done so, I beg for enlightenment.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:41:16 AM EST
    webmacher - Thanks for the life expectancy info. Here I was thinking I had mayabe 9 years left, and you're showing me around 16. I'll take it, day by day. But still, i.6 years is a large number, and black's have a right to know that on average, they'll will collect 1.6 years less. Knowing that, they can make a better informed decision. As for AARP not being partisian... I guess neithert is the ACLU... And the AARP initally was against the RX plan. I am a member, but when I look at them, all I see is shills for insurance plans. That colors my view.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#53)
    by Richard Aubrey on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 05:50:41 AM EST
    Web The point about blacks and the death benefit is that if SS can be privatized, then upon death, that portion goes to their named beneficiaries. The money doesn't disappear. In addition, since the benefit under SS is only for kids and those taking care of them, there is no support for a widowed spouse when the kids are gone. With privatized accounts, some of the money would be available. Not gone. I know. Liberals love puppies and stuff, and Stalin and Che and Fidel, and have no problem with any horror as long as an enemy of the US commits it. Seen it. It is a quicker fix to deal with SS than to spend more time and money on whatever it is that makes the difference in life expectancy. Eberstedt discovered that illegitimacy is the worst threat to kids. High blood pressure and associated problems are a particular threat to blacks, which is either a matter of genetics, or lifestyle, or a combination. What a president is supposed to do about that is unclear. We've had nutrition education (which may turn out to have been wrong) in the schools for decades. Nobody is chipper about casualties, nobody on the right, I mean. Clearly they provide you a handy tool. The point about predictions stands. You guys were wrong. Gulf War Syndrome is not a disease. That's why they call it a syndrome. It's a supposed increase in the likelihood of contracting health conditions that people get anyway. That's why it was so contentious. The existence of GWS was a matter of statistics. Some people are going to get ALS without going to the Gulf. Lou Gehrig did, that I recall. The question is whether this and other issues is overrepresented among Gulf War veterans. Since it took so long to show up, many of them were civilians by the time. That made it harder to make connections since the stats were not centralized in DOD. The stats are still contentious. A friend of mine who was plugged in says the DOD fought the idea of the Gulf War Syndrome because they knew it was a result of nerve gas exposure and our supposed deterrent to nerve gas was nukes and we didn't nuke anybody. So admitting Gulf War Syndrome would show we were bluffing, making the next use of chem agents more likely. Interesting idea, if true. But whether I tell anybody anything, the Gulf was safer in those days than was being in the States. There was a helicopter crash at Ft. Hood a month or so back, killing seven guys. That would equal or exceed any one of a number of weeks. Anyway, I don't have to explain this to you. You already know but, in the tradition of TL, hope somebody out there doesn't. The deaths among civilians in Iraq has been shown to put together terrorists who are civilians only because the surveyors said so. It includes civilians killed by the terrorists. It includes Iraqi cops killed by terrorists. It includes Iraq civilians dead of disease, including heart disease, on the theory that if Saddaam were still in power, some of these deaths by disease wouldn't have happened. Bogus. "At the hands of" is sort of like Jordan's "targeted". BS.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:17:57 AM EST
    RA - you have set a new record for the number of incorrect, biased, and unsupportable assertions in a single post. Obviously, you have finally learned how to cut and paste.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 07:58:50 AM EST
    It isn't (or shouldn't be) about race, it is about culture. There isn't anyone in America more unabashidly America is capitalism than Dr. Rice. The Democrats have fallen into the trance of quotas as a messure of equality and we had dropped the ball. It also becomes increasingly harder to "sound bite" anything past numbers and percents, so the next steps towards equality get harder to rally behind.

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 09:25:19 AM EST
    When a conservative invokes Stalin, Che, or Fidel in an argument about something else, it's a good sign that they're running out of logical arguments. (Or didn't have any to begin with.) Take a look again at your precious privitization plan. I think you'll find the saying "you can't take it with you" applies. This plan is no improvement. Quite the opposite. Hey, I'm as much in favor of building up weath as the next person. So why not incentivize savings plans in addition to Social Security, instead of this cockamamie idea? Oh, and the president could start by not cutting back Medicaid spending and a variety of other programs that help protect the health of low-income people, minorities, and children.And And veterans' health benefits too! And you can downplay the human costs of war all you want. I notice you're not talking about all the predictions the Bush administration was making ("Smoking gun/mushroom cloud", WMDs, etc.) Predictions that turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong. Justifications for a war that turned out to be wrong, wrong, wrong. Does that not bother you the least little bit? (To save you the trouble of a reply, I'll do it for you. "You liberals only love communists! Bork bork bork!")

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 02:17:00 PM EST
    ras - You need to get the word out to the overwhelming majority of U.S blacks and hispanics that vote democrat,who's been REALLY lookin out fer thier interests all this time - that is,if theyre not jes a lil too slow ta understand - 'splain it to em Mista Ras. Btw - Alot of us have been waiting for the monumental follow-up to your "we now know the Russians moved the wmds" red hot scoop from a couple of months ago - any declassified stuff you can share with us?

    Re: Republicans Play the Race Card (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 09, 2005 at 06:21:34 PM EST
    Did E.J. Dionne think that only Liberals/Democrats were allowed to cry racism when no such offense existed? How many times does the Democratic Party get to paint Republicans as racists before the cachet wears off and they have to offer some semblance of evidence? Is it because the Democrats have welcomed supposedly "former" racists into their ranks that they enjoy this privelege of "playing the race card" at every conceivable opportunity without the likes of E.J. Dionne calling them out on it? Neither party is without sin on this count. The Republicans are merely paying the Democrats back for 40+ years of bad faith. It should be stopped on both sides, but until those who have built their party on telling black Americans that they are being held down by conservatives and that black conservatives aren't really black at all, it won't end.

    Republicans Play the Race Card | 55 comments (55 topical)