Romnibus: If A Dog Gets Out in the Woods, and No One Hears It...

Eh. The Macaca moment was an idiot candidate using a racial slur. This is just an incredibly white guy trying to be hip and falling flat. Not really malicious, just clumsy in an "excuse me, miss, but I speak jive" kind of way.

There's a difference in the intent, that's key. Plus, Allen was a Californian who self-consciously wrapped himself in the Old South racial stuff -- the Confederate flag in the office, with the noose too -- while Romney doesn't have that baggage.

But, oh so very white. Almost translucent.

I haz question for MSM: Last night I caught the end of Tweety's show and John Harwood was on. They were talking about the primaries in my state and Harwood stated that if Rudy! loses Florida, he's done. But if McCain loses Florida, according to Harwood, he can keep on keeping on.

So is the Beltway elite really that desperate for Saint McCain winning that they've become so transparently blatant in their fluffing of him?

The press is too busy ignoring Edwards and trying to fan the flames of a race and gender war between Clinton and Obama to notice the Mittster jive talking. However, I do think it is smart of him to at least show up, unlike the other Republican candidates.

Yeah, Otto Man's right, this is just ignorance and condescension, not malice. It induces cringing and pity, not shock and outrage.

"Who Let the Dogs Out"? I mean, that's like a parody of what a white Republican guy would say to black people. How did he expect everyone to react? Like Roger Rabbit, compelled to finish "Shave and a Haircut"?

Sympathetic as I am to your argument about the media's McCain-love, Florida, the fact is that McCain's won a couple states, whereas Giuliani's pulled back from everywhere except your namesake state. I don't think that Harwood's point is unreasonable.

But Tweety sez that no one's beaten Rudy! yet, Elvis.

Number three question on the Romnibus today [ ... ]: "Why isn't that video of Romney jive-talking at an MLK parade getting more play? Shouldn't it be a 'macaca moment'?"

Would this be Romney staffers asking this question, or is this The Press asking why The Press isn't giving this more play?

If it's the latter, Cox, I have a question for you/them: Do they need to remind themselves to breathe?

Well, anyone with any sense is rooting for Rudy!!! because that'll just screw everything up even more.

But it's not gonna happen. Check out his latest ad over at Josh's site.

9/11 proves that he can handle the most important domestic issue of all, hurricanes. Complete with a shot of Rudy in a filter mask.

No, Ana, not a Macaca moment. George Felix Allen wasn't videotaped in an uncomfortable white person's moment trying to get down with his new homies. George Felix Allen was in his element, among his friends in the real Virginia, calling out the darkskinned person at the event, reminding them that he, like them, is a racist

But, boy, is he white.

Romney is white. So what? At least he is trying to say hello to some voters. I don't see anything racially insensitive. If he was being racist or even remotely so, I have a feeling the people around him, who appear to be 95%+ African American in this clip, would have let him know.

This clip reminds me a lot of what I have seen many a Democratic white politician do over the years. The MSM doesn't mind when stiff white liberal politicians do what you see Romney doing here. What's the difference? Maybe some media bias? Hmmmmmmm?

Some people in the media have problems with Republicans reaching out to African Americans -- that is truly sad. For now, both parties should reach out to African Americans (and all Americans) and African Americans should try to influence and reach out to both parties.

Let us know when a real Macaca moment takes place. Until then, stop trying to do McCain's campaign work for him.

B'Gurl-

Could you give an example of a "stff white liberal politician" doing what Romney did?

Off topic....

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/ACLU_poll_Majority_opposes_telecom_immunity_0122.html

Majorities of voters on both sides of the political spectrum oppose key provisions in President Bush's proposal to modify foreign surveillance laws that could ensnare Americans, according to a poll released Tuesday

This is what they call in the business "news".

It is new information that I can state with confidence is not well known or understood among the general public. If I were a "news organization", I'd write about it.

Paul Dirks-

I am sure Joe Klein is talking to Peter Hoekstra right now about what Klein should write about it.

Paul Dirks-- in your hypothetical, are you owned by companies that benefit from the general public's continued ignorance? If so, does that affect your decision to write about it?

Wow!

Now, just who DID let the dogs out?

I think it is a pretty clumsy attempt at "reaching out", but there have been lots worse. Nothing racial about it, really.

Republicans are famous for always having at least one Black American in their photo ops - no harm in that, except for the aformentioned "cringe" factor.

He and others would do a lot better by addressing issues, not trying to get sound bites.

Who let Romney out?

well, smedley, that's brooklyngurrl's point, isn't it? We don't see scenes like this with say, .......

You know, I can't think of anybody to put in there who would be a presidential candidate. Cerrtainly none of the current crop of white presidential candidates would have been that bad.

I was gonna say her claim is that when this kind of awkwardness happens, we don't see it.

But she is certainly right that there's no apparent racism--just discomfort.

If I'm ever photographed with Mormon children, I'm going to sing a few bars of "I'm a Little Bit Country and I'm a Little Bit Rock N' Roll."

Macaca moment?

This is just some clueless white guy trying to 'connect' with people. Its like every video of George Bush attempting to show that he's enjoying some kind of performance that isn't country-western music.

Funny how a truly insulting moment (remember MC Rove, with Gregory and Strictland as back-up) never managed to raise the hackles of the Villagers like this apparently does.... (except, of course, that few black journalists were not amused... but they don't really count in the Village, do they AMC?)

You know, Paul, I'd also consider writing a piece about the internecine battles going on right now among the Democrats, with votes being compared to finely parsed claims about the occupation, about single-payer health care, about identities.

And coming up this week, all three candidates have an opportunity, right now, to separate themselves out by taking a clear stance in favor of American citizens, in favor of the rule of law, in favor of the constitution, and in opposition to the adminiistration and to corporate corruption.

The FISA bill is coming back up for consideration next week. Two of the three bills that could be voted upon do not excuse lawbreaking by the telecommunications companies, and do not permit warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. (Of course, all three of those bills continue to permit surveillance of foreigners without oversight, and adds clarification that if the route the information flows through happens to include US telecommunications resources, there is still no restriction)

The bill reid introduced is the third bill, the one out of intelligence, that permits warrantless wiretapping of American citizens and also grants telecommunication companies immunity from their participation in illegal wiretapping, beginning BEFORE 9/11/2001.

The three candidats, particularly the two sitting senators, have an opportunity to prove that they can walk the walk. Rather than spending another day trying to play Tim Russert with voting records and past statements, Clinton and Obama will choose, or choose not, to stand beside Chris Dodd, and against this corrupt administration and it corporate cronies.

Seems newsworthy to me. Especially since they are being asked to do so by the very voters who doubt their commitments to the principles they espouse.

The contrast between trying to decide who was for single payer before they were against it and a simple stance on the rule of law seems pretty stark. And newsworthy.

@jayackroyd

Of course you're right. And when you consider that one of those candidates is going out of his way to assure everyone that he's one the right side of the issue:

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/01/full-text-from-obama-campaign-retelecom.html

It would appear that the opportunity to demonstrate leadership would be almost irresistable. Unless of course there is concern that certain news organizations might blatantly misrepresent what the issues are and try to create a false impression that somehow expecting companies to obey the law is tantamount to allowing terrorists free reign over our telecommunication system.

Offhand, I can't think of any news organizations that would do that, can you?

AMC: [Romney staffers ask] "Why isn't that video of Romney jive-talking at an MLK parade getting more play?"

Yeah, it's pretty bad news for your candidate when he has a racially-insensitive (not racist) dork moment and doesn't capture the news cycle.

As for the "Why.." question, I'm imagining that all the oxygen available for the horserace is currently being used up covering the Obama vs. The Clintons feud...

Tell your Mittbot staffers not to worry, Ana; if by some miracle the Romnibot comes out on top in the primaries, we'll be happy to do for Romney's tasteless, mildly condescending flub what was earlier done for Howard Dean's awkward-sounding scream...

BrooklynGurl: Some people in the media have problems with Republicans reaching out to African Americans...

Nope. It's just that Repubs do it so clumsily, and generally don't pair the outreach effort with legislation that concerns minorities...So it all comes off as forced and a little hypocritical. I guess that it's a good thing that some in the MSM have problems with those things.

jackaroyd, try...

Al Gore...

George W. Bush...

John Kerry...

Regardless of party there are various upperclass white men who have had hopeless times trying to look comfortable when "reaching out" during various campaign and other public events in their respective primes. I don't see any in the current Democratic field (at least those who are left) but, then again, I'm not sure the media would report it if they saw it.

So as to not sound to anti-white male, we should all note that people of varying backgrounds often have difficulty fitting in with people of other national origins, ethnic backgrounds or socio-economic origins. We see it all the time in our society (at least I do in NYC) and give people credit for trying to connect, as long as done with good intent. I don't see anything but good intent (and maybe some poor execution) here.

That's it for me. This was a fun diversion but I'm not thinking about this subject any more. Onto FISA or Iran or federal debt reduction or some other REAL campaign issues.

To me, it looked like everyone was just having some fun. What's the big deal?

Believe it or not, this is actually the most positive thing I've seen from Romney during the whole campaign.

What he said was about three years out of date, true, but he's a dorky white guy. He'd probably say so. There's nothing new about that, as others noted, and at least he's attempting to relate to the electorate. God bless him, we need more out-of-touch politicians who are willing to get out into the people and note from experience how slightly dorky they really are in context. But I didn't sense anything malicious in his words, at least not here.

It's a refreshing and welcome break from the months of watching him attack Larry Craig for campaign gains, run smear campaigns against his opponents in the race, and take a stance on terrorism that contravenes the Third and Fourth Geneva conventions (articles 3 and 3c, respectively), unless he's reversed his stance on wanting to double Guantanamo Bay in size. One might even think he that his policies on illegal immigration were designed to help minorities, watching him try to reach out to the minority vote and all, but one would be wrong.

Bravo, Mitt! But I'm still not voting for you, not until you stop increasing my personal danger from terrorism every single day by publicly declaring support for the "secret" prison that's become second only to Abu Ghraib as a watchword for human rights abuse and unjust treatment in conflict. Call me cynical for thinking the poor, disenfranchised, often landless and hopeless men who regularly join terrorist militias are just as messed up and desperate as they were before you started trying to acting tough...just a little bit angrier and even more disenfranchised, now. I mean, surely that will teach them not to blow themselves, and us, up, right?

To anyone else reading this, sorry for the tangent. Guess I'm feeling a bit disenfranchised myself these days. And I'm definitely not voting for Mitt Romney.

Signed,
Surly in So Cal

I think one that people have missed is the timing of the incident. People here have said that Romney was only "trying to connect" and made a few unfortunate comments.

However, when someone like Romney decides he wants to be president, it is only during a campaign stop on MLK day that he tries to connect with black people. Pathetic.

Here is a rich man, the son of a governor who as a businessman heartlessly cut jobs in order to line his own pockets.

When he was a young man, he went to France to get people to convert to his religion rather than learn about their own culture.

He says everyone in this country should speak english, but puts out campaign ads in spanish.

He doesn't care about people different from him, except when he wants their votes.

I thought I could leave this alone, but grape_crush is spinning falsehoods. Holding up a vote on C. Chavez is hardly some great civil rights setback -- indeed, Mr. Chavez's insurrection racist politics make him a controversial figure in many Latino circles, including those my Hispanic family walks in. The vote you cite as being held up by Republicans is a symbolic vote. When Coloradoans went to the polls on in 2002 to determine if March 31 should be designated a legal holiday for observing the birthday of Cesar Chavez as "Cesar Chavez day", approximately 80% of Coloradoans voted NO. This included counties such as Conejos and Costilla Counties in which hispanics are in the majority. You can't fault Republicans for rejecting the politics of division inherent in the cause of La Raza and those who support reconquest of the SW US by Mexico.

Ignoring red herrings like Chavez votes and look at the history of substance on civil rights and Democrats have failed this country for countless decades.

grape_crush, there is a history between the Republican Party and the African American community that goes back for 150 years. Before you or anyone else rip on the party too much, take a look at the current race-bating going on in the Democractic campaign by the Clintons. You should learn your history and look a little more closely and the empty rhetoric of many Democratic leaders before passing judgment on the Party of Lincoln.

Please note that historians and the media have done an excellent job of trying to gloss over advances in civil rights policymaking, much of which has been made with the help (or occasional instigation) of Republicans.

Let's go to the 1950s. Ike, with much behind the seens help from VP Nixon, desegregated schools (all he could even before Brown v. Board of Education) and the military (yes Truman ordered it but did little to make it happen) in a way that some Democrats only talked about and often with Democratic opposition (especially opposition in the Senate from that great leader of civil rights touted by Hillary Clinton, LBJ, who after passage of civil rights legislation he had opposed took credit for it publicly -- what a snake!).

Look at the civil rights act of 1964. Republicans had been trying to get such legislation going since Ike but had not been able to due to the pushback from LBJ and co. Only when MLK and public opinion put the heat on JFK and LBJ did they agree to push legislation that a majority of Republicans supported and their leadership pushed through (with the assist of many Democrats). Despite all those advances pushed with the aid of Republicans for the better part of 4 decades, African Americans still turned out to vote for Democrats in overwhelming numbers in the 1950s and 1960s, even when the Democratic party was one that tolerated and pandered to blatant racism.

Between 1933 and 1964, in the twenty-six major civil rights votes that took place, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80% of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96% of the votes. Yet African Americans still voted Democrat in overwhelming numbers. This, needless to say, frustrated the Republican Party, especially Ike. He could not understand why African Americans stood by the party of racially charged politics. I still don't get it.

Let's look at the great "leader" that so many Democrats point to in the civil rights arena: JFK. After his election in November 1960, after a campaign in which he supported no civil rights legislation but his opponent Nixon did, he then failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. Ike had things going in DC and activists had things going in the streets and JFK gave the matters lip service and nothing more for over two years. Things boiled over. When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion forced him to act. He wasn't a leader, he was a follower.

Fast forward to Bill Clinton v. Bush: When Bill Clinton had a chance to appoint African Americans to high office, he failed to do so in the same way that "backwards" George W. Bush has done. Democrats like to talk but Republicans just get the job done when it matters....

The Republican Party has a long history of actually implementing policies that advance the cause of African Americans, while Democrats have a much longer history of racism, politics of racial division and opportunism (displayed most horribly by LBJ and the Clintons now).

When it comes to the real history of civil rights in this country, it't not one the Democrats should be talking about too much. The party's leadership has talked a mixed talk and had a very disturbing walk for many decades.

Don' t blacks talk like that anyway? And has anyone ever heard black comedians making fun of speaking "white"? As a matter of fact, blacks speak two languages (dialects?) in America. The one they have to speak in the working environment ("white speak") and the one they speak amongst themselves (aka "jive"). All is fair in the world and folks should get off their high minded, ultra sensitive, hypocritical, PC non sense BS.

Presidential campaigns email servers are being shut down by voters demanding that CLinton and Obama go back to Washington and back Dodd's play.

This is now officially a campaign issue.

Can we, um, write about it?

Can we please use this opportunity to correct the Joe's stenography of Hoekstra's lies?

This is a big issue. It's right down the middle of the fight Clinton and Obama are having RIGHT NOW about who is the true progressive.

The voters are answering that a true progressive would be in Washington, in the well, supporting Dodd.

Clinton and Obama need to show some leadership in the Senate on issues that matter now in order to prove that they do more than talk.

The people demand action. Will they listen?

Posted by jjlasne | January 23, 2008 2:04 PM
Don' t blacks talk like that anyway?
__________________________
No, they don't talk that way if you are talking to the African-Americans who will be casting votes. You made the same assumption that Mitt did when he approched the family. The family was courteous. Romney was condescending. He made an assumption.
When Black voters read your response about how "they" talk, see the Romney MLK video, remind themselves of Huckabee's response to the SC Confederate flag issue, and listen to the clip of Limbaugh's "Magic Negro" being played, they make assumptions about you are the aforementioned individuals as well.
You might try getting out and try meeting some real Black people instead of using Black comedic entertainers as your guide. But, if you are going to learn about people from entertainment, you might go see "the Great Debaters" with Denzel Washington for a deeper insight.

And if Clinton and Obama did go to DC to support Dodd, it could have a more positive impact for their campaigns than whatever else they are doing today.

BrooklynGurl:

WHERE did you learn your history?

"grape_crush, there is a history between the Republican Party and the African American community that goes back for 150 years. Before you or anyone else rip on the party too much, take a look at the current race-bating going on in the Democractic campaign by the Clintons. You should learn your history and look a little more closely and the empty rhetoric of many Democratic leaders before passing judgment on the Party of Lincoln."

It might interest you to note:
After 1865, Black Americans had rights equal to White Americans. From 1865, culminating in 1910, Democrats succeeded in rolling back those rights by the implementatin of Jim Crow laws.

Fast forward to the '60s:
The Democrats AND Republicans disaffected by the Civil Rights vote in 1964 fled to the Republican party in the late '60s and early '70s.

ATTENTION:
To make it VERY clear, BrooklynGurl, you are disingenuous when you represent your party as the same party as the "Party of Linconln" in the 1860s.

I invite YOU to go to www.splcenter.org and type in the name of YOUR favorite "heroes" participating in YOUR manufactured history and look at just who is, and who isn't, or hasn't, been involved in racially motivated activities, organizations, or have published racially charged agendas.

SHAME on you, BrooklynGurl, you should know better!

I am sorry, B'Gurl, but to buy what you are selling is extremely insulting to African Americans. If what you wrote is true about the current Democratic Party (I will not deny that the pre-civil rights legislation Democrats were racist) then you or someone else must explain why today's African Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. You are covertly calling them ignorant for doing so, you just don't have the courage to say it. Why are 100% of Black Congress members Democrats? There must be some explanation that you just are not seeing. I wonder why.

Uh, BrooklynGurl, have you EVER thought there might be actually an intellegent reason just exactly why Republicans NEVER have gotten more than 10% of the Black vote?

It's NOT because they are stupid and can't think for themselves, BrooklynGurl!

jjlasne:

Hate to tell you this, but they speak "white" on the job so as not to make White co-workers uncomfortable around them.

It is very good case of "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".

One of the things you and others complain about being "PC" is actually more of your problem than theirs. You see what YOU see as PC is really just giving respect for American race history as it really is.

Both you and BrooklynGurl should ABSOLUTELY stop trying to "remake" history and accept that your party has contributed greatly to the racial discord in this country.

If I can talk to my brother in law about Ransom, one of his ancestors who lived in the 1830's and was a stud without feeling guilty, you can too!

B'Gurl:

Here is a link so you can see what the "conscience of the Republican Party" of the Fifties and Sixties, William F. Buckley, had to say about race in America:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/8543.html#more-8543

I have mentioned thes two books on GOP history before:
The Emerging Black GOP Majority by Earl Ofari Hutchinson and Republicans and the Black Vote by Michael K. Fauntroy. These two tomes should be required reading to GOP supporters who attempt to reach across ethnic lines. In the first, Hutchison details commonalities between to GOP and African-Americans in social conservatism. He also explains that the GOP will blow an chance for developing this common ground because of it's rigidity (see the RNC's abandonment of those Conservative Black churches it hoodwinked in the 2004 election).
In the second book, Fauntroy details the fact that iLincoln was opposed by many Republicans for his actions regarding the slave issue. Fauntroy also details the party split into the "Lily-Whites" and the "Black and Tans". Also detailed is the Hayes-Tilden Compromise. The later event gained a President by the "righteous" GOP compromising with the "racist" Democratic Party.
These reads might provide a better historical perspective and overcome the delusions many GOP members have regarding their Party's entire history.

smedley, I encourage you to recall the actions of the actual leader of the Republican Party of the 1950s, President Eisenhower. Look at actual voting records of the actual Republicans in office and then write. Try reading such excellent historical works as "A Matter of Justice" by David A. Nichols and then post. It clearly spells out the Eisenhower/Republican record and, when read in contrast with the actual actions taken by LBJ, really pulls back the deception of historians.

I became interested in the partisan distortions of civil rights history upon visits to the Eisenhower library in Abilene, Kansas, where I noticed a display on Ike's contributions to civil rights. I thought, hmmmm, that's strange, the Democrats are supposedly the ones who pushed Civil Rights in the 20th Century (so I had been taught in school and by the propoganda of the Democratic party). I started doing research into this matter and came to realize that much of the accepted conventional wisdom concerning the Republican Party and the Democratic Party concerning race is misleading and, in many instances wrong. This is especially true when we look at the records of Ike, JFK and LBJ vs. the accepted "history".

Why should we accept the Democrats' claim as the party of civil rights (except most of the African American leaders who got involved in the party who were pushing such rights despite many of the Democrats in office) any more than we should ignore the contributions of Republicans? I accept that there were and are Republicans who have contributed to racial discord but no more so than there have been Democrats who have done so.

smedley, African Americans voted for Democrats overwhelmingly in the mid-20th Century, even while Republicans were the ones pushing the civil rights agenda and Democrats were stalling it out. I am not trying to insult African Americans -- I am just trying to point out that the history of race and the political parties has a lot more going on than you apparently want to accept. Dig below the rhetoric and look at the facts. LBJ and JFK were not what they have been built up to be and Ike did much more than he has been given credit for. While Ike was winning awards for civil rights advancements, African Americans were voting against him. What is the explanation for this? I don't know. I am not trying to insult anyone. I am just pointing out that party and race is a very tricky thing.

Look at the voting records and the vast majority of racist rhetoric during the 1950s and 1960s (the "Civil Rights Era") and you will see that the Democratic Party was largely the home of racism and the Republican Party, especially its elected leadership, was much more a party championing the advancement of civil rights -- were their exceptions? Yes. Was the party of Ike perfect? No. Was he and his party much more solid on civil rights than JFK or LBJ and their Democratic Party? Yes.

Ultimately, neither party offers a history of perfecton on civil rights but Democrats can hardly claim a monopoly on the subject. My point is that Republicans have done much more than they have been given credit for in conventional takes on history, especially during the Civil Rights Revolution of the mid-20th Century.

What's the big deal?

Nothing. It's just funny.

To be complete candid, this video made me like Romney more, not less. That said, I'd never actually vote for the weasel.

B'Gurl:

I already agreed with you that the Democrats up to the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were racist. The parties switched on the issue in the sixties. These things happen. Republican Teddy Roosevelt was a "progressive" in his era. It doesn't mean today's Republican Party is progressive.

You seem obsessed with Ike. OK. Ike had a huge amount of political capital when he came to office. What civil-rights legislation did he sign into law? Truman integrated the armed forces. I will agree with you the Ike did the right thing by sending the National Guard into Little Rock in defiance of the racist Democratic Governor Faubus.

But, if he was committed to the principal, what did he expend his political capital on?

And you are ignoring the "Southern Strategy" that both Nixon and Reagan used to win the White House.

I am sure you are peddling your "Republican Party is the natural home of African Americans" in the African American community. Let us know how that's going for you.

BrooklynGurl, I will concede for the sake of argument that everything you say about the 1960s is true.

That was 40 years ago, and things have changed.

As you know, at that time, avowed racist politicians like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms left the Democratic Party.

At this link, and this one, you can read about how the GOP has chosen to handle things in the post-civil rights era.

I agree with you that Dwight Eisenhower is tragically underappreciated. Read his thoughts on trying to avoid war ("humanity on a cross of iron"), civil rights, and Social Security ("their numbers are small, and they are stupid").

BrooklynGurl

What you don't appear to come to grips with is that the GOP is now the home of the Old Dixiecrats. I could really care less if someone wants to fly a Confederate flag on their own property. The stance of GW Bush, Huckabee and others on a flag representing rebellion against the US flying on government property is another issue. The GOP fails that test.
Racial commentary by GOP heroes like Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, etc add to the mix. There are few Black Conservatives in the GOP willing to tell your party the truth on how their comments and the GOP's acceptance of them is viewed. Instead of confronting the GOP, the Sowells, McWhorters, etc give the GOP an escape clause. Juan Williams can tell Bill O'Rielley that he understand Bi'lls reaction to normal behavior in an African-American restaurant. Juan is handing out bovine feces that will only result in a further distancing of the African-American community from the GOP.

You cite what is essentially ancient GOP history. The States Rights folks and Dixiecrats are now proud members of the GOP.
If you want the GOP to be judged on it's past and not the present, then you obviously agree with reparations for slavery. Both positions want to address the past. Ancient GOP history does not absolve the GOP from Lee Atwater and the Southern strategy of today. Again what is the difference in your position and those calling for payment for slavery? Compensation either emotionally or economically for past events. It's 2008, face up to what your party is doing today to cause 90% of African-Americans to sense hostility. Listen to Limbaugh on Black NFL quarterbacks, then watch Gibson on FoxNews discuss racial issues. After that reflection, watch Mitt Romney again in that context. He looks like a fool. Is that racist behavior? No, but it's a mute point because I have already dismissed him.

Ike integrated the schools in DC and schools used by children in the Armed Forces. Ike also integrated the Armed Forces despite political opposition. Ike pushed as much of the Civil Rights agenda as he could, given the opposition in Congress. His philosophy of civil rights was "talking less and doing more".

Ike introduced, pushed and passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, despite massive fillibuster efforts by Democrats and behind-the-scenes gutting of the Acts by LBJ, which he engaged in using his position in the Senate. No civil rights laws had been passed in over 80 years. Ike used political capital to get the acts passed and also to send troops into the South. I know many people discount these acts but they were the boldest actions taken by any president in over 80 years.

As for Nixon, he pushed the Ike civil rights agenda in the 1950s, at times leading Ike on the subject. Was Nixon perfect? No. But he was a lot better than LBJ could have ever dreamed of being on Civil Rights. Somehow, it is accepted that LBJ was a partner in civil rights (Hillary's much noted comment) but Nixon the devil. Neither is true.

Reagan used the 43 state victory strategy and rolled into office in 1980.

rmrd0000, I guess that your having "dismissed" Romney settles the discussion. Are you saying that since he looks like a fool, we should just forget anything of value he has to offer?
How very superficial.

BTW, I am still trying to figure out what the Democratic Party has done for civil rights since the 1960s, other than talk. Tell me, what has the Democratic Party done lately to warrant the blind allegience of minority voters, other than spew rhetoric about the evil Republicans? If the 1960s are ancient history, Democrats should stop citing MLK et al. and start tellling us what they have to offer today.

Obama tried to show he could bridge the racial divide and the party has divided along racial lines more than ever. Good luck, Democrats. It looks the politics of racial division is alive and well, thanks to good ol' boy, Bill Clinton.

Brooklyn Gurl,

I agree that Ike is an underappreciated President.

"Ike also integrated the Armed Forces despite political opposition." However, as others have pointed out -- Truman integrated the Armed Forces.

I was in a small women's college in the early sixties, which was near the Maryland border. My closest friend, who was black, refused to go out to dinner with us when my family came the first parent's week-end because she couldn't go to the "nice" restaurants in the area. I remember separate drinking fountains and train waiting rooms in the 50s.

I think you have this a bit wrong --
"As for Nixon, he pushed the Ike civil rights agenda in the 1950s, at times leading Ike on the subject. Was Nixon perfect? No. But he was a lot better than LBJ could have ever dreamed of being on Civil Rights" LBJ passed the major Civil Rights legislation in this country -- remember the quote when he said this would lose the South for the Democrats for the next many years.

And, as rmrd0000 said,
"You cite what is essentially ancient GOP history. The States Rights folks and Dixiecrats are now proud members of the GOP."

Think Trent Lott.

"Number three question on the Romnibus today [ ... ]: "Why isn't that video of Romney jive-talking at an MLK parade getting more play? Shouldn't it be a 'macaca moment'?"

Would this be Romney staffers asking this question, or is this The Press asking why The Press isn't giving this more play?

Posted by Jim C. | January 23, 2008 10:56 AM"

JIM C - I think you got it right - it's THE PRESS asking THE PRESS. Romney seems to have fallen a little flat in that scene - but kudos to him for being there and making an attempt to connect with citizens.

BrooklynGurl:

"Reagan used the 43 state victory strategy and rolled into office in 1980."

What is your point?

HE didn't do any better with the Black vote than any other modern Republican did.

Are you saying that the Southern Strategy (at that time, the "Angry White Male") was OK just because it was a "winning strategy"?

You DO have a bad habit of leaving out the thirty intervening years of Republican policy of projecting racial hatred for political gain. It mystifies me how you can completely overlook this.

Brooklyn Gurl

Ike was great on civil rights there are several recent books shedding well desrved light on his role in Civil rights including "A Matter Of Justice". but you are engaging in aviodance behavior. Instead of addressing my question to you about about the GOP, you ask about the Democratic Party. I can understand why you don't want to address the GOP question. I have to leave for a while , but I will return with a more complete response.
During the Clinton era, there was an improved economic status that helped a variety of people. Here are quotes regarding the administration's impact.
--------------------------------

My colleagues and I have been very appreciative of your [President Clinton’s] support of the Fed over the years, and your commitment to fiscal discipline has been instrumental in achieving what in a few weeks will be the longest economic expansion in the nation’s history."
— Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, January 4, 2000, with President Clinton at Chairman Greenspan’s re-nomination announcement

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994

One of the reasons Goldman Sachs cites for the "best economy ever" is that "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
— Goldman Sachs, March 1998

"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997
------------------------------------

Other tidbits

Unemployment for African Americans fellfrom 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in October 2000. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in October 2000.

Clinton enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.

I'll be back. Perhaps by then you'll have answered by questions about today's GOP and African-Americans. Perhaps you can tell us about the gorious housing bubble that is bursting and the fact that 55% of African-Americans who were eligible for prime loans were directed to subprime loans. (I expect a typical GOP response to that fact). The impact of the subprime scandal is going to leave an even more bitter taste against the GOP since GW was saying everything was fine until about a week ago.

Oh, and on Romney, I had seen the fiscal aftermath in Mass. I also heard his "lifelong rat hunter" story and flip-flops on a variety of issues. Romney is just dismmmed a liitle more than he was in the past. It was a Ducausus moment. have watch those Mass. Governors and photo ops.

Lastly, what about the current GOP and African-Americans. A GOP President, House, and Senate and fiscal irresponsibility abounded, but we got that Affirmative Action stuff accomplished.

BrooklynGurl:

Democrats have a peculiar position right now of having been pretty much deaf to the needs of the Black community over the years. As a matter of fact, Democrats did not stand up, rank and file, when the Congressional Black Caucus stood up before the American people to complain of the handling of the Katrina crisis - one of many times where the CBC had to stand alone without Democratic help.

Given that, which should have certainly given Democrats pause, why do Black voters STILL vote 90% Democrat?

Possibly the idea that the Deomcrats are the "lesser of two evils"?

Doesn't the flipside of that observation have implications for how the Republican party is percieved?

ivb, Johnson lost America for the Dems because of Vietnam, not because of civil rights. LBJ was forced into passing civil rights legislation by events on the ground in America. He knew he had to pass it or he would have some serious explaining to do to the American public. He dragged his feet in both the Senate in the 1950s and in the executive branch in the 1960s. It's not like he was a leader in civil rights. Hello?

ivb, Truman did not integrate the armed forces. He ordered them to be integrated but then did little to enforce the order. Ike took personal interest in the matter and enforced the order, effectuating integration in the beginning of his administration. Truman talked. Ike actually did something about it.

53_2, you do have a habit of ignoring 30+ years of Democratic Party doing nothing for civil rights other than talking and taking African American votes for granted.... Make that 70 years. Say all you want about Republicans spewing hate. I see plenty of wedge racial politics going on right in front of us, with America's "First Black President" being the main offender. If you want to discount history, then look at today. Look at the Clinton's use of race. It is shameful.

"Obama tried to show he could bridge the racial divide and the party has divided along racial lines more than ever. Good luck, Democrats. It looks the politics of racial division is alive and well, thanks to good ol' boy, Bill Clinton."

BrooklynGurl:
Don't know where you get the idea that Bill is somehow a racist. He's proven himself otherwise. I'm thinking you see this stuff on Republican blogs and take it at face value.

Democrats do definitely straddle the racial divide, and some are not the greatest boosters of racial equality, but the Republicans, with the exception of a few (and even they don't complain!) are ALL on the wrong side of it.

With that in mind, tell us, please, what MODERN Republicans have done. For your answer, stay within the time frame of 1970 to the present.

BrooklynGurl:

The racial politics going on were essentially a tempest in a teapot. As for the view that President Clinton was the "First Black President", well, that is how he is percieved in many circles in the Black community and he, like mrd0000 has pointed out, done many things to address Black Americans concerns.

As to the level of hate, what I've said about Republicans is severally documented ably by mrd0000, smedley, ivb, and others on this blog as well as myself. Take a look at those links.

I think this is one of those cases where, the people that matter, some 31,000,000 Black Americans, are for some reason, not fathomable to yourself, absolutely and stubbornly refuse to believe as you do.

What, pray tell, might be the reason for this?

BTW, Still waiting for the list of Republican post-1970s "accomplishments"...

Look at actions, not just words in matters of "diversity" and advances of people of all backgrounds. Some Republican actions that were of note post-1970:

The first Asian American federal judge was Republican Herbert Choy, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, by President Nixon.

The first woman on the Supreme Court was Sandra Day O'Connor. Before she became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona Republican was the first woman to be Majority Leader in the legislature of any state.

The first Hispanic member of the President’s Cabinet was Republican Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under President Reagan.

President Ford in 1976 repealed FDR’s notorious executive order interning 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

Colin Powell was the first African American to be National Security Advisor or Secretary of State.

Condoleezza Rice was the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor and is the first African American woman to serve as Secretary of State.

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao was the first Asian American woman in any president’s Cabinet.

Attorney General Gonzalez was the first Hispanic AG.

This is the face of the racist/sexist party. Give me a break. I don't see Democrats doing anything better, besides my point is that when it counted most, Republicans were there and are still there. For socialist programs? No. For equal opportunity and advancement of all people? Yes.

Of course, "racist" Republicans appointed and elected many African Americans to office as well.

Pray tell, why did African Americans fail to vote for Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s? No one has the answer. Why would that party ahbve continued to keep trying to seek African American votes when decades of appropriate action went un-rewarded and history books ignore it.

I have looked at the links and seen plenty of examples of racist banter and actions by... Democrats and Republicans. I don't see a huge difference post-1970 and Democrats look awful for about 100 years before that. Try again. After reading what I read, I really can't figure out why African Americans don't bolt the Democratic party or at least threaten bolting, so as to cause Republicans and Democrats to actively seek the voting bloc. The Party of luminaries like Senator "KKK" Byrd is the home of African Americans. Don't worry, Democrat racists are oky! Yeah, Democrats are so wonderful (wink, wink)!

BrooklynGurl

53_2, you do have a habit of ignoring 30+ years of Democratic Party doing nothing for civil rights other than talking and taking African American votes for granted.... Make that 70 years. Say all you want about Republicans spewing hate. I see plenty of wedge racial politics going on right in front of us, with America's "First Black President" being the main offender.
------------------------------------
The response is typical GOP cacography. Never address the shortcomings of the GOP, always focus on the Democratic Party. The result is a circular argument. As 53_2 points out, if the Democrats are as bad as you say they are, how pathetic must the Republicans be? The GOP, like Bill O'Rielly, is amazed that African-Americans think for themselves. The GOP can only accept blind faith following of what Rev Jackson and Sharpton tell them to do. It cannot possibly be that Republicans, when they interact with African-Americans come off as so out of touch, condescending, callous, and dismissive that it is untenable to consider casting a Presidential vote for one of them.
Now back to your question regarding the Democratic Party and Civil Rights. The true Civil Rights battle is now economic. African-Americans remember the Johnson and Clinton eras as having provided a boon their collective coffers. Poverty levels fell. The Reagan, Bush I and Bush II eras are remembered as economic downturns. Clinton reduced poverty rates during his eight years in office. GHW Bush had a 15% poverty rate, the Clinton poverty rate was 13.7% at the end of 4 years. The poverty rate at the end of 8 years of Clinton was 11.2%. At the end of 4 years of GW Bush, the poverty rate rose to 12.7%. Since poverty impacts African-Americans disproportionately, I'd chose the Democrat as opposed to the GOP. The economy, a Civil Rights issue. The rise in poverty occurred with a GOP President, House and Senate. See Table 9 in the link below.
The GOP has been shifting wealth to the upper 1%. The question is not what is wrong with African-Americans, the question is "What's The Matter With Kansas."

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos138/datadisplay/sections/poverty/poverty.htm

I addressed your Civil rights and the Democratic Party question. I don't expect a response from you about either what the current benefit of being a Republican would be for African-Americans given the GOP's current race-baiting surrogates and Southern Strategy. I also don't expect an answer to the increased poverty rate under complete GOP control. I expect more avoidance behavior.

Posted by BrooklynGurl

The Party of luminaries like Senator "KKK" Byrd is the home of African Americans.
--------------------------------
This always comes up. Byrd was a Klan Kleagle, a recruiter. In the late 1960's, following the death of a grandson, Byrd underwent a transformation. He came to realize that African-Americans loved their children as much as he loved his. Byrd currently has an 85% positive rating on Civila rights graded by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Ex-Virginia Senator George Allen had a 14% rating.
try to deal with the present and not the past. Byrd is a different person than he was in the past, so is the GOP.
The information above can be found in Byrd's autobiography. The grading can be found on the Legal defense Fund's website.

Why would that party ahbve (sic) continued to keep trying to seek African American votes when decades of appropriate action went un-rewarded

This has got to be the funniest explanation for Republican inaction on civil rights I've seen yet: it was because those damn Negroes were so ungrateful!!

"Look at actions, not just words in matters of "diversity" and advances of people of all backgrounds. Some Republican actions that were of note post-1970:"

Do you mean ignore all the "Angry White Male" rhetoric, etc, and stuff that extends even to the current day coming from the Republican Party?

Women, other minorities and Black candidates are ROUTINELY elected in Democratic precincts on a yearly basis. We've had a Black mayor here recently, and our current county executive is also Black. THESE individuals stood the test of elections, NOT highly localized appointments in time and geography.

"Colin Powell was the first African American to be National Security Advisor or Secretary of State."

He finally quit the Administration after soldiering on - and - BTW, he had DEEP disagreements with the Administration on the issues relating to the Black community.

"Condoleezza Rice was the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor and is the first African American woman to serve as Secretary of State."

Score of two to how many ELECTED Black Democrats? And WHAT did she say, pray tell, about the conduct of the Katrina debacle? Eh? My hand is cupped over my ear, STRAINING to hear what she said...

"Attorney General Gonzalez was the first Hispanic AG."

Most of us would prefer to forget this one!

"Of course, "racist" Republicans appointed and elected many African Americans to office as well."

Appointed, yes, a few, but "elected"? Where? I hope you are not going to try to present Alan Keye's famous "itineracy" as an example. There IS a name for that, you know...

"Pray tell, why did African Americans fail to vote for Republicans in the 1950s and 1960s? No one has the answer. Why would that party ahbve continued to keep trying to seek African American votes when decades of appropriate action went un-rewarded and history books ignore it."

No one has the answer? Have you EVER talked to ANY Black Americans? Any at all? Or is this just what you've seen on rw blogs?

You MIGHT get an answer, you know...

I hate to say it, BrooklynGurl, your "honesty" is starting to show hear, if I may borrow some codespeak from the "Angry White Male" days of Republican rhetoric...

"...After reading what I read, I really can't figure out why African Americans don't bolt the Democratic party or at least threaten bolting, so as to cause Republicans and Democrats to actively seek the voting bloc."

Maybe, my dear Gurl, they are a wee bit smarter than you, methinks! I mean after all, 31,000,000 of them decided that way, and just one of you, so, well, you are going to have to excuse me, but I think that they just might know why, and be smart enough to use their heads. Are you saying that you are "righter" than 31,000,000 Black Americans about how your party is percieved?

THAT is QUITE a leap of self-induced faith!

"The Party of luminaries like Senator "KKK" Byrd is the home of African Americans. ..."

This is pretty tiresome, Gurl, but he recanted. So did Wallace. When someone shows some honesty (I mean honesty in the REAL sense, NOT the Southern Stategy code word!) they get forgiven pretty quickly.

I think I have to echo the sentiment of smedley's when he wished you luck trying to peddle this...

Um, I almost forgot!

Even your beloved ex head of the RNC - Mehlman - went before the NAACP to apolobize for Republican conduct the past 30+ years.

Now riddle me this, BrooklynGurl:

WHY do you suppose he would do that?

After all, according to what I've seen on right wing blogs, the NAACP is nothing but a bunch of terrorists or worse.

Me, I think that it is the premier civil rights organization in existance for 103 years - and has done inestimable work under sometimes harsh conditions to further the case for Civil Rights.

Which perception of the NAACP do YOU think is right, eh, Gurl????

Posted by Paul Daniel Ash

This has got to be the funniest explanation for Republican inaction on civil rights I've seen yet: it was because those damn Negroes were so ungrateful!!

______________________
Just like Romney, they just can't help themselves. Thanks for providing the levity.

MEMO TO Ana Marie: To answer your questions of why it isn't getting more play and shouldn't it be a "macaca" moment, I'd say:

-Because it's so trivial as to be comical that you'd want to bash him for it. Can't a politician be spontaneous and crack a completely inoffensive joke......or is anything fair game for your enmity? Or are you just joking?

-I'd worry more about all of Hillary's or Barack's plans that would affect the economy, because they'd be quite devastating. Government control over the healthcare system.....getting rid of the soc sec wage base for 15.3% tax rate (minus 2.9% HI which Clinton imposed in 1993). Not to mention the surrender to the Jihadists.....we'd see an unleashing by them, waiting in the wings, to destroy the budding democracy in Iraq.

rmrd0000, you know what they say about statistics. Something about lies.... Anyway, you now inform us that poverty rate is the end-all of racial allegiance to political parties, so let's look at Census Bureau povety stats for the past 40 years or so..., looking at "Black" poverty only (from beginning to end of each administration):

Nixon/Ford: 32.2% to 31.3% (-0.9%)
Carter: 31.3% to 34.2 (+2.9%)
Reagan: 34.2% to 30.7% (-3.5%)
Bush I: 30.7% to 33.1% (+2.4%)
Clinton: 33.1% to 22.7% (-10.4%)
Bush II: 22.7% to 24.3% (through 2006) (+1.6%)

What can we extrapolate from these numbers? Since 1969, poverty rates among African Americans have gone down and up. The largest four year increase was under a Democratic President and Democratic Congress. The largest decrease was under a Democratic President and Republican Congress, with the biggest reductions coming after the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform compromise was enacted.

It looks like Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton were all good on reducing African American poverty, so they were successful presidents by rmrd0000's measure. Carter and the Bushes had African American poverty go up, so they must have been, what, racist? Try again, rmrd0000. Next time, don't cherry pick your stats. If you want to talk African American issues, then look at African American stats.

If poverty rate statistics are the basis for African American loyalty to the Democratic party, then there should have been a mass exodus after the Carter years saw backsliding and the Reagan years improved the economy and more African Americans worked there way out of poverty. Since that isn't the case, make up another story. Next time, it had better be good because this one was really lame.

If you want a post-1970 response, see the poverty stats above. It looks like Republicans have a record that would warrant more African American support if poverty is "the" post-1970 issue, as represnted by rmrd0000. It looks like your argument has run aground. Have a good night.

Looks like BrooklynGurl stuck her foot in her mouth.

The largest reduction, by far, was by the only president proactive with respect to Black issues - and that's Clinton.

Most other changes are fairly small and reflect inaction on Black issues - common attributes of both Democrats and Republicans.

However, don't forget that these numbers are against a backdrop of steady growth in the economy generated by the birth, growth and maturity of the IT field.

Had these numbers been scaled against that growth, we might see what proportion of growth actually migrated to Black American. Carter's reign was through a disasterous recession and a spate of inflation - as high as 12%, so his numbers aren't as "damning" as she thinks...

It's pretty clear, by these numbers, that active targeting of Black issues resulted in a real change in poverty levels - and Bill Clinton, not the Republicans, was the ONLY one to address them directly.

BrooklynGurl:

Look for Bush II's numbers to get MUCH worse. We are in for one HELL of a ride, and Black Americans who are falling to the wayside in the subprime mortgage debacle were NOT included in your numbers!

Do you HAVE to keep trying to hold out the same pile of excreta after repainting it a number of times?

Excreta is excreta even if it's painted gold...

I like the way you expertly got Gingrich's name in there under "welfare reform" - then tried to link Clintons' -10.4% reduction to that.

I might remind you BrooklynGurl, that Clinton held office for eight years, and welfare reform didn't - and wasn't - designed to float anyones' economic boat.

Addendum to above:

"The largest decrease was under a Democratic President and Republican Congress, with the biggest reductions coming after the Clinton/Gingrich welfare reform compromise was enacted."

THAT statement is FALSE.

53_2, I gave Clinton credit where credit was due. Remember, the Republican Congress was there, too. I find it laughable that 53_2 attributes the decline under Clinton's watch to Clinton and only Clinton but dismiss Carter's rate increase as being the result of some huge economic problems. You can't have it both ways.

It is amazing how easily you forgive Dems who have racist pasts but won't even take a second to look at the advances made by Republicans. Me-thinks you are a party hack. Pray tell, are you not?

It is apparently not possible to continue a dialogue with you because you dismiss anything Republicans have done as inadequate and make excuses for Democrats. No matter what I could bring up, you would give me some dismissive Democratic party line. Therefore, I will not continue as your dialogue is condescending and irrational.

Before I sign off, I must say your assumptions about me and blatant irrationality are hard to deal with. I live in a 90%+ Black area of Brooklyn. I work with and have many African American friends, some of whom are Republican, believe it or not. I even have African American friends over for dinner, go out with them and do holidays with them (I know that that would be the next question -- do I not just know African Americans but actually socialize with them). You apparently just can't stand that Republicans aren't all a bunch of racists. It hurts your pre-judgments and basis for categorical understanding of a statistical world. Your dismissal of any Republican efforts to deal with "African American issues" and your failure to come to grips with the mixed history of your beloved Democratic Party is disappointing.

A knife through the heart of her "arguments":

http://www.urban.org/publications/411334.html

Hmmmm....

For someone in the "know", I guess you STILL wouldn't show them what you've posted here on occasion, now, would you?

Of course not!

But so far, I have becked EVERY assertion with facts - AND links.

I'm not the least bit bothered by you plaint. You still have to successfully argue with that 90 percentile who are obviously, in your own words, not as smart as you!

As a final goodbye, I won't bother to air my "credentials", but I will say this:

In addition to the facts and links provided by all of us, severally and multiply, I have lived through the entire period of time, and know from whence I speak. Observations and experiences rule.

I'm certain that your Black Republican freinds agree with you, I'm not going to assume that they don't. However, whether you like it or not, they only represent a small percentile of the country's Black Americans.

I don't think you can use your experience to extrapolate the fact that they at most are a small minority into a much larger one.

Posted by BrooklynGurl

As 53_2 pointed out above, the Clinton numbers are amazing. The Reagan numbers are impressive. But The Bushes are abysmal. Romney and McCain who seem to be as clueless as GW regarding the economy, I see no reason to join the GOP. During Romney's term as Governor, Massachusetts lagged behind the national average in job creation, wage increases, and economic growth.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/20/mitt_romneys_economic_record_questioned/

McCain seems to want more Bush, not wise given your stats above.

In your response you implied that the GOP officials I mentioned were racists. I never used the term. I did say Republican leadership seemed dismissive and condescending. I stand by that observation. Given the dramatic improvement under Clinton, It would seem wise to go with the party that produced Clinton rather than the party that produced the two(2) Bush economic under-performers. This is especially true if a poor economic performer like Romney is chosen as the GOP candidate.

I think you can thank Barry Goldwater for the seismic shift in African-American votes. William F Buckley also helped push Black people away from the GOP. The States Rights thing, you know.

Given the dramatic Clinton numbers and the dismal economic performance of Bush I and Bush II, do you have any VALID reasons for African-Americans to join the GOP?

BrooklynGurl: ..grape_crush is spinning falsehoods...

Hardly. Your posterior has been handed to you repeatedly in this thread, Brooklyn, and yet you still keep on truckin', misrepresenting other people's arguments, such as:

rmrd0000...you now inform us that poverty rate is the end-all of racial allegiance to political parties..

where the original comment reads:

The true Civil Rights battle is now economic.

Of which the poverty level is just one aspect. rmrd0000 also mentioned other facets, such as the unemployment rate and home ownership...

You're spinning so fast that I could use you to generate electricity, Brooklyn.

Furthermore, your attempts at giving a history lesson have fell short because they are just that - history. Today's GOP is not the party of Lincoln, and has no one in a leadership role that even remotely resembles Teddy Roosevelt. Over the past few decades, your party has pandered to some of the most intolerant elements of US society, and yet here you are, desperately trying to convice people - including yourself, maybe - that the political party you've chosen has almost completely failed to represent a big chunk of the US population. I'll leave you with this, from December of 2002:

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.

BrooklynGurl: I work with and have many African American friends...I even have African American friends over for dinner, go out with them and do holidays with them...I not just know African Americans but actually socialize with them..

I'm sure that your African-American friends and coworkers would love to know that you think of them as your "African-American friends" and coworkers instead of just thinking of them as your friends and coworkers, Brooklyn.

You apparently just can't stand that Republicans aren't all a bunch of racists.

MMmmm...building those strawmen sure are fun, aren't they, Brooklyn?

Your dismissal of any Republican efforts to deal with "African American issues"

Bush installing his work wife, Condie Rice, as Secretary of State does not qualify as a Republican effort to deal with African American issues.

..and your failure to come to grips with the mixed history of your beloved Democratic Party is disappointing.

No, what is diappointing is that you have failed to recognize that people in this thread have acknowledged that the Dems weren't always leaders on civil rights issues, instead preferring to pretend that the GOP of today is of the same character as party of Lincoln...or maybe it is, considering the actions of Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's Vice President and successor:

Johnson, in a letter to Governor Thomas C. Fletcher of Missouri, wrote, "This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men."

Actually, what I think was hilarious was when you tried out the 'numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers' adage..then proceded to use numbers to lie.

grape_crush:

I wonder what my wife would think of her? I mean, "do" holidays?!?! If that's what she does, well,

Wow.

I thought that I was just staying home for Thanksgiving and Christmas, you know, not really "do"-ing, well, anything, really. Play with grandkids, etc, etc.

You know, everyday home stuff...

Them damned #@!ing numberz anyway!

Posted by grape_crush | January 23, 2008 11:36 PM:

I'm sure that your African-American friends and coworkers would love to know that you think of them as your "African-American friends" and coworkers instead of just thinking of them as your friends and coworkers, Brooklyn.

That's a little below the belt, isn't it?

Let's try to win hearts and minds at least some of the time, OK?

This was an interesting exchange. The GOP has a blind spot with many ethnic groups. For some reason they feel the need to continue to rub the wound with a Brillo pad as they try to "educate" the unwashed.
jjlasne's post above indicates that visions of the African-American CEO of McDonald's going home to his "shortie" float through his head. Limbaugh being unaware that Black quarterbacks had led NFL teams for years (including at the Super Bowl) when he singled out McNabb for ridicule and Bill O'Rielly being amazed at being able to have a "normal" meal at Slyvia's Restaurant verifies that ethnic stereotypes do run deep in GOP quarters.
Apologists like Juan Williams and John McWhorter have to share some of the blame for how ill-informed the Republicans remain.

stuart_zechman-

I agree, but it is hard to keep it civil when one side continues to assert that she knows better than African Americans which party African Americans should gravitate toward. She is obsessed with pre-Civil Rights era party histories that have little relevance today.

I appreciate that she takes the time to defend her party, but what is relevant today is where the parties stand on these issues right now.

stuart

I think the discourse, considering the content, has been VERY instructive, and very mild to say the least.

Civility is something to be valued on both sides of any argument, but the Southern Strategy, it's concepts, and it's use is something that I hope will be eradicated.

Winning "hearts and minds" has been a strategy that has been employed by many of those I know when confonted with ignorance. However, the heart and the mind usually don't get won over until something else happens to that individual. It is something most people don't realize, but is a VERY intelligent way of handling ignorance in day to day life.

Nowadays, the prime perpetuators of that ignorance, without a doubt, are those that practice "Southern Strategy".

After watching for 30 years in frustration at how the "Angry White Male" was packaged, bought and sold to the lowest moral bidder, I am glad that I am finally involved with these people in changing a paradigm.

Witness Question Hillary. He no longer peddles that codefied Southern Strategy stuff which used to be his specialty. He actually now has content to his posts and they are a little more civil and less hateful.

So whatever you think of how "hard" any of us have been on these individuals, we are changing the discourse - and - I remind you - the netwide attention you and others got over the roasting of Joe Klien over FISA wasn't accomplished with nicey-nicey.

Hopefully, even someone like Joe Klien will be wary of treading Southern Strategy waters.

stuart_zechman That's a little below the belt, isn't it?

I calls 'em like I see 'em, Stu...I took me a while to figure out that saying stuff like, "I have black friends" was offensive; not because there was hate in my heart, but that there was something programmed into me that categorized people that I liked by their skin color.

Let's try to win hearts and minds at least some of the time, OK?

I'm thinking that Brooklyn is not a 'winnable' type, based on how badly he/she's twisted her arguments around. I have a hard time meeting someone who is flat-out wrong halfway.

I might offer to those who have signed on here to take another look at Romney's video.

Notice, even though it is almost pathetically funny to us how Romney behaved, the Black Americans in that clip smiled, clapped, and in general, showed him considerable hospitality. Notice the civility and politeness.

Most posters have focused on Romneys behavior, but I urge those of you here to now focus on how this group of Black Americans handled such buffonery.

THAT is how hearts and minds are won in the Black community, and that is how ignorance is handled on a day to day basis!

Huh? What jive? If that's some kind of error, slip, "macaca moment," or gaff, then some folks are looking for anything, anything!, to deflect from the race trashing going on over in that other party.

M4V Converter free download center- ALL M4V conversion tools which help you feel free to convert M4V to MP3, AVI, WMV, MPEG, FLV, 3GP, WMA. And useful Guide on How to Deal with M4V files.
m4v converter
convert m4v
Ultra Quicktime M4V converter currently is the best M4V converter which can convert Quicktime movie M4V to AVI, MPEG, MP4, MPG, WMV, ASF and Vob. As we know Quicktime movie usually has the video formats of M4V, MOV, QT, MP4, and M4V, With this M4V Converter, you can feel free to Convert them all with fast speed and high output quality.
m4v to avi
m4v to wmv
With the fast and powerful QuickTime video decoder inside, Ultra QuickTime M4V Converter supports almost all MOV, QT, MP4, M4V files, even QuickTime Player has not been installed. Integrated High-speed MPEG-2 encoder which let you convert M4V to DVD-Video files(VIDEO_TS, AUDIO_TS) and VCD/SVCD , so you can burn VCD/SVCD/DVD disc easily from QuickTime files by using third-party buring tools. It is a software program for converting video formats at fast speeds and high quality. Very user-friendly interface and Quality Profiles.
m4v to mpeg
m4v to mp4

Easy Way to Cut Large Video Files into Small Clips with Video Cuttervideo cutterFLV Video Cutter3GP Video Cutter Ultra Video Cutter is a powerful video cutting tool. The main function of Ultra Video Cutter is to cut large video files into new video files, and also to join or merge multiple video clips into a large one. AVI Video CutterMP4 Video CutterDVD Video CutterDAT Video CutterVideo Editor
The program supports so many video formats including AVI, Divx, XviD, MPEG, WMV, ASF, RM, MOV, 3GP, MP4 formatsVideo MergerVideo JoinerVideo Splitter

بلوتوث - -
مقاطع بلوتوث - -
يوتيوب - -
مقاطع يوتيوب - -
فديو يوتيوب - -
فيديو يوتيوب - -
افلام - -
موقع يوتيوب - -
youtube.com - -
يوتيوب عربي - -
منتديات - -
مسنجر - -
مدونة - -
العاب بنات - -
العاب باربي - -
Mzaeen’s Weblog - -
يوتيوب - فيديو - بلوتوث - -
تحميل افلام - -
تحميل افلام
تحميل افلام
افلام
افلام
مشاهده افلام
تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
افلام - تحميل افلام - مشاهده افلام
مركز تحميل - -
تحميل - -
تحميل صور - -
تحميل ملفات - -
مركز التحميل - -
صور - -
العاب لعب العب - -
لعب - -
العاب - -
لعب العب - -
hguf - -
العب - -
منتديات برامج نت - 70 - ثيمات -
خلفيات - العاب الجوال - ثيم رومنسي مهند ونور -
ثيم مهند وهو حاضن نور - ثيمات رومانسية للبنوتات -
ثيمات رومانسية بنات - ثيمات حب حلوة -
ثيم مهند التركي - ثيم نور -
ثيم حب نور ومهند - ثيم مسلسل لوست -
ثيمات افلام ومشاهير - ثيم نور ومهند -ثيمات لميس -
ثيمات مسلسل نور -ثيم مهند ونور -
ثيمات رومانسيه -ثيمات E61 -
ثيمات بنات رومنسيه -ثيم سنوات ال