feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things

  1. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,529

    First, Rick Santorum thinks only blacks are on welfare.

    Here's the quote in question, uttered Sunday at a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa. In reference to entitlement reform, it sounded like Santorum said: "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

    NAACP president Benjamin Todd Jealous, in a statement quoted by CNN, called the remark "outrageous," adding "he conflates welfare recipients with African-Americans, though federal benefits are in fact determined by income level.”

    CBS News looked into the racial distribution of food stamps in Iowa, and found that 9 percent of recipients are black, while 84 percent are white.

    http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/05/santorum_black_remark_condemned_questioned.html

    Then there's this whopper from Newt:

    Just days after Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum took heat for singling out blacks on entitlement reform, Newt Gingrich called out the African-American community for being dependent on food stamps -- despite the fact that blacks make up less than one third of recipients in the food stamp program.

    Gingrich, during an appearance in Plymouth, New Hampshire, spoke about remarks he would theoretically make if invited to speak to the NAACP.

    "I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," Gingrich said.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57353438-503544/gingrich-singles-out-blacks-in-food-stamp-remark/

    Posted on January 5, 2012 - 11:25 PM #
  2. "Just days after Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum took heat for singling out blacks on entitlement reform, Newt Gingrich called out the African-American community for being dependent on food stamps -- despite the fact that blacks make up less than one third of recipients in the food stamp program."

    There's a flaw in this reasoning. What is it?

    Posted on January 5, 2012 - 11:27 PM #
  3. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,529

    There's no flaw. Stats don't lie. More whites are on welfare than blacks.

    Posted on January 5, 2012 - 11:30 PM #
  4. Yes, more in absolute numbers. But what about percentage by race?

    Posted on January 5, 2012 - 11:32 PM #
  5. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    Who gives a shit?

    All this discussion does is single out people when the truth is we've got a ton of people getting hosed due to long term systemic and growing problems.

    Posted on January 5, 2012 - 11:37 PM #
  6. "The use of food stamps in America has continued to climb in recent years, and hit an all-time high of nearly 45 million in 2011.

    According to U.S. Census Bureau, about 28 percent of households that receive food stamps are African American, while 59 percent are white. According to the same report, about 78 percent of American households are white, while about 12 percent are black. (The overall population is 72.4 percent white and 12.6 percent black.)"

    Let's do the math.

    45 million on food stamps.

    Blacks are 28% of that number and whites are 59%. That would mean three are 12.6 million blacks on food stamps and 26.6 million whites on food stamps.

    Based on a population of 300 million and the percentages of white and black above there are 217 million whites and 37.8 million blacks.

    The percentage of whites on food stamps is 26.6/217 or 12.2%.
    The percentage of blacks on food stamps is 12.6/37.8 or 33.3%.

    I'm not making any judgments. But statistics don't lie even though liars use them in deceptive ways to distort reality or as excuses to call people "racists" over genuine and legitimate concerns.

    The bottom line is that we have to congratulate Obama for being the "food stamp president."

    Posted on January 5, 2012 - 11:52 PM #
  7. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    Again, who gives a shit?

    The only reason to target any group of people is to discriminate against them, or attempt to place blame.

    Neither are appropriate.

    What is appropriate is the answer to the question WHY there are so many in need right now and to set policy to remedy that.

    The follow on question this year is who will best do that?

    Sure isn't going to be the asses looking to lay blame, is it? Thought so.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 12:09 AM #
  8. I don't think a politician would go into a black community with the idea of "targeting" them or "blaming" them. How smart would that be? But it is legitimate to bring to light the fact that so many are on food stamps and that improvements are needed. That's not racist.

    But to answer Vitalogy's question, I think the reason is that the Democrats do a better job of buying their votes (but not with their own money of course). Keep them needy and keep promising benefits--a great way to own a substantial percentage of the electorate.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 12:24 AM #
  9. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,529

    Fuck you F&B.

    More whites are on food stamps than blacks. The reason more blacks as a percentage are on food stamps is BECAUSE THEY QUALIFY due to income, not their race.

    You're a real asshole. A racist bigot. And a general jerk.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 12:30 AM #
  10. LOL, I just gave you the statistics. I didn't make any judgments about race. You have a problem with actual facts presented fairly?

    The problem really is that Democrats didn't learn the lessons of the Civil War and still want to own black people. That's why they vote Democrat. Democrats own them. Democrats play the race card. Republicans would like to free the blacks from depending upon social programs, but Democrats want them enslaved to them so that they can count on their votes.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 01:03 AM #
  11. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    Can't argue with that.

    Here's the truth. The people you support F&B, and the economics you prefer, are exactly WHY we have so damn many people in need.

    Obama ran on, "change" meaning let's fix it.

    The asses you support basically ran on "let's make him fail", and "hope he fails", and now somehow Obama is at fault on this one?

    No fucking way! Anybody who buys into that is a dumbass. Seriously, just thick and and really shitty.

    That garbage isn't gonna fly this time. Running on "NO" makes it completely obvious where the problem really is, and that problem simply isn't Obama, who is of good character, smart, and of the honest intent to work to make it better.

    They took that, and tried to shove it right up his ass, blaming him for just having one, by way of morbid analogy that fits those ass clowns perfectly.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 01:10 AM #
  12. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    "That's why they vote Democrat. Democrats own them."

    What a dick. Seriously. I'm not even gonna be nice about it. Don't think I have to.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 01:16 AM #
  13. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,544

    Wow! The Merkin Anti-Troll App is working wonders. But for some reason it's showing Motozak3's credit card numbers . . . Hmm . . .

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 02:41 AM #
  14. PianoMan

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 508

    Yeah, yeah, Republicans always claim that they're all about "opportunity" for the Black community -- and then they turn right around and oppose even the mildest forms of affirmative action, proactive school integration, redlining reform, voting rights laws and everything else that would actually extend that opportunity. Then the first time a Black president is elected they question his nationality, challenge his eligibility (even though they clearly know better) and attack his religion -- along with that of millions of other African Americans who attend historically Black churches like Trinity. Then on top of that they issue insulting, paternalistic pronouncements like Santorum's, Gingrich's, and F&B's. As if I (or anyone else) would vote for someone who loudly and repeatedly insists that I've been "bought" by the other side and that I'm incapable of thinking for myself!

    It's so absurdly obvious why Blacks don't vote Republican that there's not much point in even raising the question. What does deserve more discussion is the fact that virtually all white supremacists nowadays DO vote Republican.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 03:47 AM #
  15. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,823

    Wow F&B, your last post blows a big hole in the theory that there was still a part of your brain that was rational.

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 07:21 AM #
  16. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,780

    The problem really is that Democrats didn't learn the lessons of the Civil War and still want to own black people.

    For making this statement UF&UB should be banned FOREVER. This statement this the single most stupid statement ever made in the 14+ years I've been here except for some of the shit that Deane posts...

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 10:11 PM #
  17. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,780

    Wow F&B, your last post blows a big hole in the theory that there was still a part of your brain that was rational.

    UF&UB must have an IQ under 60.....

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 10:11 PM #
  18. "UF&UB must have an IQ under 60....."

    Remember Joel? His was 161. lol

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 10:18 PM #
  19. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,780

    LOL!!!!!

    JoelinPDX was such a tool...

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 10:24 PM #
  20. You did it, Fair and Balanced. Congratulations.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwGRJA28lY

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 11:23 PM #
  21. motozak3

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,469

    "But for some reason it's showing Motozak3's credit card numbers...Hmm..."

    Yeah, BIG "hmm", considering I don't even own a credit card! (I work strictly cash, and the occasional money order.)

    Posted on January 6, 2012 - 11:45 PM #
  22. "Over the years, some of the most devastating policies, in terms of their actual effects on black people, have come from liberal Democrats, from the local to the national level.

    As far back as the Great Depression of the 1930s, liberal Democrats imposed policies that had counterproductive effects on blacks. None cost blacks more jobs than minimum-wage laws.

    Minimum-wage laws around the world have a track record of increasing unemployment, especially among the young, the less skilled and minorities.

    One of the first acts of the Roosevelt administration was to pass the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, which included establishing minimum wages nationwide. Blacks lost an estimated 500,000 jobs as a result.

    After that act was declared unconstitutional, the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 set minimum wages. In the tobacco industry alone, 2,000 black workers were replaced by machines, just as blacks had been replaced by machines in the textile industry after the previous minimum-wage law.

    Fortunately, the high inflation of the 1940s raised the wages of even unskilled labor above minimum-wage level. This law became virtually meaningless until the minimum-wage rate was raised in 1950.

    During that time, 16- and 17-year-old blacks in 1948 had an unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, slightly lower than that of whites the same ages and a fraction of what it would be in even the boom years after the minimum-wage rate kept getting increased by liberal Democrats.

    Urban renewal was another big Democratic liberal idea. It destroyed mostly low-income minority neighborhoods and replaced them with upscale housing that the former residents could not afford. People were scattered to the winds, destroying community ties between families, neighbors and local institutions from churches to family doctors to businesses.

    Even when liberal Democrats try to help blacks, the results often backfire. The political crusade for “affordable housing” and minority home ownership drew many blacks into homes they could not afford. The net result was an especially high rate of foreclosure and, in the end, black home-ownership rates lower than before the crusade began.

    Political rhetoric often leads listeners to the opposite conclusions than one finds when checking out hard facts.

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2011/10/06/policies-of-left-often-hurt-blacks.html "

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 12:53 AM #
  23. "Studies show that most black Americans are conservative and share the values of the Republican Party. However, even though the socialist policies of the Democrats have destroyed the economic and social fabric of black communities, most blacks continue to vote for Democrats. Blacks are voting against their own best interest for two primary reasons. One reason is the fact that black Americans have been wrongly convinced that the Republican Party is a racist party. The National Black Republican Association was founded for the express purpose of setting the civil rights record straight and exposing the Democratic Party’s failed socialism.

    A detailed analysis of another key reason why Republicans are having very little success attracting more blacks into the Republican Party is provided in the article “Why Is the Black Vote in the Democrats’ Pocket that can be found on the Internet at: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-is-the-black-vote-in-the-democratic-pocket/

    Ochieng opines that blacks have been trained by Democrats to expect political parties to provide quid pro quo. In other words, while Republicans want to help blacks pursue happiness (teach blacks how to fish so they can feed themselves for a lifetime), Democrats want to provide happiness to blacks (give them a fish so they can eat for a day). Deeply rooted in the black community now is the belief that the government must “do something” for blacks.

    http://www.nbra.info/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#The_Democratic_Party_Owes_Blacks_An_Apology "

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 12:59 AM #
  24. Examining Black Loyalty to Democrats

    Very interesting video and worth the time:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xryXpK042pQ&feature=player_embedded#!

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 01:37 AM #
  25. "We lived in the Richard Allen housing projects" in Philadelphia, says Mr. Williams. "My father deserted us when I was three and my sister was two. But we were the only kids who didn't have a mother and father in the house. These were poor black people and a few whites living in a housing project, and it was unusual not to have a mother and father in the house. Today, in the same projects, it would be rare to have a mother and father in the house."

    . . . During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family."

    The "welfare state," i.e. the handiwork of Democrats has done this. Why? To seize and retain ownership of the black vote. To have Uncle Sam the head of the black family pays huge dividends for those who want power. The Democrats do not want independent and self-sufficient black people. They want to keep them down so they can coddle them and come to their rescue for their own selfish ends of course. Notice that any black who "strays from this plantation" and becomes a conservative is always smacked down. You'll see that on this board. He'll be called an "Uncle Tom."

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 02:08 AM #
  26. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,018

    The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 02:20 AM #
  27. Amus

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,853

    Good Grief!
    It's not that complicated.
    The main reason African Americans (for the most part) don't vote GOP is nothing new and can be summed up in two words.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 07:38 AM #
  28. Here's two more words that sum it up: racist tools.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 09:05 AM #
  29. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    Two more: Willful ignorance.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 09:15 AM #
  30. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,823

    And two more: Civil rights

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 12:01 PM #
  31. A good explanation for the "thinking" of Fair and Balanced and the like minded can be found here: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/whats-the-matter-with-newt-and-the-naacp-anyway.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    Excerpt:

    For all Newt’s apparent bafflement, the reason the NAACP is miffed is clear. Newt is not talking to the black community; he is employing stereotypes about that community to talk to white audiences. (He’s not alone here, the NAACP put out a statement Thursday when Rick Santorum did the exact same thing.) Even if Newt does visit the NAACP, the underlying point is not reaching the black community, it’s about appealing to white voters with a characterization of the black community as dependent on welfare. The NAACP is being used as a foil to appeal to white voters with Republican talking points about welfare, dependency, and the failures of their community.

    There’s a second layer as well. If there’s one thing that makes conservatives bristle, it’s accusations that they are racist. Newt’s comments assuage those fears. As he puts it, the problem is not that African Americans don’t like Republicans or their ideas, it’s that they’ve never heard them (which seems an insulting underestimation of them in itself). What Newt is saying to conservative audiences is that African Americans vote for Democrats because they don’t know about our policies, not because our policies don’t help them. Not only is he appealing to white voters by stereotyping minorities as welfare dependent, but he is also doing so by assuring them that they aren’t racist.

    Sound familar?

    By the way, "liberals" & "Democrats" do not bristle at a black Republican or conservative because they are black. They bristle if the person in question happens to be a fucking idiot.

    For example:

    Herman Cain is a fucking idiot.

    Colin Powell is a very smart man.

    One was roundly mocked and for very good reasons. The other was roundly lauded, by many people regardless of their political affilation, also for very good reasons. (I was ill over his lack of action in preventing The Iraq War; but that's a whole other thread.)

    Finding one random (and very, very stupid man) to file in line behind whom happens to bee black is a useful tool for Republican self identification and noththing more. Oh, what's that? There's a single black guy you found you can support? Oh, well gosh, then you must not be a racist doofus at all! My apologies. The fact 99% of your party is all white, older, rural, far right, conservative knobs whom are openly hostile to all manner of civil rights is clearly not germane.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 12:54 PM #
  32. Vitalogy

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 6,529

    Plonk!

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 01:01 PM #
  33. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    Seriously. *PLONK!*

    (might as well hand LG a double)

    How much you wanna bet "germane" ends up a source of confusion, projected into elitism?

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 01:03 PM #
  34. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,018

    "Colin Powell is a very smart man."

    That's the man I'd love to see run for president.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 01:28 PM #
  35. "Colin Powell is a very smart man.

    One was roundly mocked and for very good reasons."

    Colin Powell is a "good" black Republican for similar reasons liberals think pro-choice pro-gay marriage Christians are "good" Christians.

    "My apologies. The fact 99% of your party is all white, older, rural, far right, conservative knobs whom are openly hostile to all manner of civil rights is clearly not germane."

    "Openly hostile to civil rights?" That could only mean opposing changing the definition of marriage? What else have you got? And how is your party doing concerning civil rights for the most innocent and helpless? Not very well, I hear. In fact you pride yourselves on the denial of their rights.

    And what is the relevance of "rural"?

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 02:05 PM #
  36. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    Yeah, openly hostile.

    Rural generally means less socialized, and less educated in general. There are always exceptions, so note the word GENERAL. Remember, I said IN GENERAL.

    In areas of high population density, it's more difficult to avoid civil rights issues, as the implications of them is easily and consistently seen, again GENERALLY SPEAKING.

    And yes, social liberals have the high ground F&B. Get used to it. The trend is in that direction, growing rapidly as old, white conservatives continue to tip over, while finding it increasingly difficult to back-fill their ranks, largely due to a more connected society today.

    And that connects to rural as well, GENERALLY SPEAKING.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 02:10 PM #
  37. Mrs.Merkin

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,416

    Ignore the Rural Pooper

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 02:14 PM #
  38. skeptical

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 5,544

    No amount of good will is going to excuse Powell for partipicating in Bush's lying games. For God's sake, he was a 4-star general. If he couldn't identify flimsy evidence then he's an idiot.

    Either way, idiot or liar, no White House for Powell.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 02:36 PM #
  39. Skybill9

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 9,018

    "...no White House for Powell."

    That is true.

    I read an article a few years back and it stated his wife didn't want him to run because of all the crap that gets dug up whether it's true or not.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 06:00 PM #
  40. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,780

    No amount of good will is going to excuse Powell for partipicating in Bush's lying games. For God's sake, he was a 4-star general. If he couldn't identify flimsy evidence then he's an idiot.

    He was going along with The DICKster and DUHbya and look where that got him and America after 8 years. FUCKED!

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 07:19 PM #
  41. "Rural generally means less socialized, and less educated in general. There are always exceptions, so note the word GENERAL. Remember, I said IN GENERAL.

    In areas of high population density, it's more difficult to avoid civil rights issues, as the implications of them is easily and consistently seen, again GENERALLY SPEAKING.

    And yes, social liberals have the high ground F&B. Get used to it. The trend is in that direction, growing rapidly as old, white conservatives continue to tip over, while finding it increasingly difficult to back-fill their ranks, largely due to a more connected society today.

    And that connects to rural as well, GENERALLY SPEAKING."

    I've lived in the city and in rural areas--mostly rural.

    And you would be surprised just how smart and just how good some of those dumb unsocialized farmers and hicks are.

    And no, you'll never convince me that the liberals have the high ground on the social issues, especially not so long as you are the champions of you-know-what. That is a huge stumbling block to me and I can't see past the horror of it.

    But I think that the youth will become conservative out of self-defense. I was having a talk with my son's girlfriend (early 20's) who voted for Obama and who would probably call herself a liberal, and she said it's my generation that's screwing over hers. And I agree with that. We're putting unfair burdens on them, and I think some day they will say enough is enough.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 11:19 PM #
  42. missing_kskd

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 13,939

    The beauty of it F&B, is I don't have to, and that's all that needs to be said.

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 11:26 PM #
  43. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,823

    Conservative out of self-defense? Defense against what? The government?

    Or defense against other groups in society (pro-womens rights groups, pro gay marriage groups, pro-national health care groups, anti-war groups, and on and on)? That would be class warfare, which conservative say they abhor. Why fight a defensive war against other classes of people in society? Why can't we just all get along, Conservatives?

    Posted on January 7, 2012 - 11:33 PM #
  44. edust1958

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 1,484

    The reason most black people won't vote GOP is that they have figured out that the GOP stands for rich, white folks who get their jollies from screwing over everyone else so that they can get richer... the latest screwing has been the wholesale shipping of employment to low wage, non-union countries to the detriment of those who work in unionized manufacturing plants... a fair proportion of whom are African-American.

    Does anyone want to be dependent on a handout? I suspect that only a very small portion of American society lives in a world where having that next child is the ticket to continued state financial support... and that percentage is likely to be distributed in the same racial pattern as society as a whole... can I prove it? Can you prove otherwise? How do you survey or obtain statistical evidence of a behavioral trait... you can't ... you can only observe outcomes and speculate on the mental process that produced that outcome...

    Posted on January 8, 2012 - 09:26 AM #
  45. NoParty

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 10,780

    But I think that the youth will become conservative out of self-defense.

    We're born Liberal and brought up Liberal you have to make a CHOICE to be CONservative. Kinda like UF&UB thinks Lesbian and Homosexual people do....

    Posted on January 8, 2012 - 02:32 PM #
  46. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,960

    As I try to get caught up on this thread, I feel a need to state the obvious:

    Trying to help help people escape unemployment and underemployment is great. The reason that remarks like Santorum's are politically problematic is because they carry the implication that the reason that Black people tend to be unemployed, underemployed, or poor is that they are not trying hard enough to be successful. For people who lived through the Jim Crow era (or those close to such people), this is like a slap in the face.

    Posted on January 9, 2012 - 02:08 AM #
  47. Alfredo_T

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 4,960

    But I think that the youth will become conservative out of self-defense.

    There was a short-lived era in the mid-late 1990s, when it started to become hip among Gen-Xers to be a self-identified conservative. That was when Bill Clinton was President, and thus was seen as "the establishment." The conservative Gen-Xers, in my opinion, were getting satisfaction out of rooting for those that they perceived as the underdogs. The events of the early 2000s changed everything: a Republican became president, the tech bubble burst, a terrorist attack happened on US soil, two controversial wars were started, a number of the high-end white collar jobs that the Gen-Xers hoped to find after college were either outsourced or eliminated altogether, and the conservative rhetoric became more and more extreme as the Bush years wore on. This last change made it somewhat of a liability to call oneself conservative.

    I don't think that we will see another generation of young people gathering under the "conservative" banner until the George W. Bush years and the current extremist rhetoric of the GOP are a distant memory (i.e., Gen-X will hit the rocking chair before this happens).

    Posted on January 9, 2012 - 02:51 AM #
  48. PianoMan

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 508

    My new favorite F&B quote: "Republicans want to help blacks pursue happiness (teach blacks how to fish so they can feed themselves for a lifetime)."

    So the problem is that those poor ignorant darkies just don't appreciate all the wonderful things we conservative white guys do for them. (For what it's worth, I believe that was also a fairly widespread sentiment in the South circa 1850.)

    Of course this statement might be at least forgiveable if Republicans would support, say, a coordinated push by all three branches of the federal government to integrate and equalize public education across the country, accompanied by an offer of free post-secondary tuition for all Blacks and Native Americans. (I have long believed that something along these lines would be the most workable form of reparations for Black slavery and NA dispossession, and one that would indirectly benefit the rest of us as well.) If Republicans were truly willing to put their money where their mouths are and be the party of "opportunity" for racial minorities, championing this idea would greatly improve the party's standing in those communities. How about it?

    As for the links F&B provides, they basically consist of endless indignant restatements of the fact that racists once held powerful sway in the Democratic party and that the Republican party once had a liberal wing that on the whole was more pro-civil rights than the Southern Democrats (though less so than the Northern ones). True, but so what? Today liberal Republicans and white supremacist Democrats are both extinct. Yes, Democrats raised the Confederate flag over the Southern statehouses, but in our era it's been Republicans, and ~only~ Republicans, who have fought to keep it there. And of course we also find the requisite, tiresome (and irrelevant) assertion that MLK Jr. himself was a Republican, a claim that appears on virtually every right-wing web site, but one that I have never been able to verify from a reliable source. My personal suspicion, until someone proves me wrong, is that he never joined either party.

    Posted on January 9, 2012 - 03:45 AM #
  49. edselehr

    vacuum tube
    Posts: 2,823

    As for the claim that MLK was a registered Republican, that makes sense given the times. Even 100 years after the Civil War, no self-respecting white Southerners would align themselves with the Party of Lincoln, so they were all Democrats of some type, be it Democrats as we know them today, or "Southern" ("Dixiecrat") Democrats. I could see MLK registering as a Republican, even if just as a poke in the eye to the white power establishment.

    And I could also see today's Republican party taking such a fact completely out of context for partisan political gain.

    Posted on January 9, 2012 - 08:40 AM #
  50. You can see that because they do it all the time.

    The Republican party of today has nothing in common with The Republican party of the past.

    See also, The Southern Strategy

    Posted on January 9, 2012 - 09:23 AM #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.