Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ] |
| Subject: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
Author: sammy | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 22:55:49 12/11/02 Wed i must say, it sucks that the republican party still, in the year 2002, has a distinct trace of racism amongst some (or many, depending on whom you talk to) of its membership. it also sucks that all of this trent lott stuff will probably just quietly blow over, and he will remain a leader within the "Grand Old Party." for those of you who have absolutely no idea what i'm talking about, feel free to read any of these articles about the recent controversy surrounding senator trent lott, of mississippi: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/politics/10LOTT.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/politics/12LOTT.html http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/12/opinion/12HERB.html [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: anne [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:14:34 12/12/02 Thu sammy- i have to say that i agree with you. trent lott sucks. the fact that 40% of this nation maintains a nonvoting status during elections--thereby assisting the appointment of these idiots--sucks enormously. people- we need to vote. it IS important. if george w. is reelected in '04 i am officially moving to europe (or maybe i'll become canadian, eh? at least they have a national health care system...). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:46:06 12/12/02 Thu As the (probable) token Republican who reads these I feel compelled to respond to these alligations of suckiness. A) I contend that Trent Lott does, in fact, suck for his terrible comments. B) His comments in no way reflect the views of the GOP and claiming they do just plain sucks. Every party has its share of people with not so mainstream views. C) Anne is right and therefore does not suck. If you did not vote, you suck. D) Any democrat winning in 2004 (at least of those so far mentioned as possible candidates) would, from my military standpoint (going to war also sucks, I do not support Bush so that we can go to war), would suck a lot. E) Anne moving to Europe or ::shudders:: Canada would also suck a lot. F) The fact that D and E conflict does suck. G) Since you read this far, you do not suck. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:01:53 12/12/02 Thu i read this quote somewhere, but i don't remember where. i think it was some leader of a national civil rights group: "if senator lott's remarks last week were an isolated incident, we would be willing to accept his apology as truly genuine" unfortunately, the truth of the matter is that trent lott has made many similar statements in the past, has defended the ban on interracial dating at bob jones university by saying that, "racial discrimination does not always violate public policy" when the university's tax exempt status was being challenged int he supreme court, and, throughout the 90s, appeared before the council of conservative citizens (what i would call a less-obvious form of the ku klux klan, and who, i would guess, all vote republican). dan, trent lott is the elected leader of your party in the senate. that is a fact. it is also a fact that the republican party has given its unqualified support to senator lott, since he made the statement that the country "wouldn't have had all these problems over the years," if strom thurmond was elected as president in 1948. let me remind you that strom thurmond's ONLY platform, running as a candidate of the dixiecrat party, was the continuance of racial segregation. let me also remind you that thurmond had been a LOOOOONNNNGGGtime member of the republican party, before his retirement this past year. you may be right that every party has its share of people with not so mainstream views, but, unlike in the republican party, those people are not the elected leaders of their own party. i think it sucks that people (read: republicans) are trying to explain this away, instead of confronting it head-on. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. (kinda long) | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:01:57 12/13/02 Fri here, i think this quote, from paul krugman's column in today's ny times, better articulates what i was trying to get at in my last post, in response to dan's post: "The Republican Party's longstanding "Southern strategy" — which rests on appealing to the minority of voters who do share Mr. Lott's views — is no secret. But because the majority doesn't share those views, the party must present two faces to the nation. And therein lies the clue to Mr. Lott's role. To win nationally, the leader of the party must pay tribute to the tolerance and open-mindedness of the nation at large. He must celebrate civil rights and sternly condemn the abuses of the past. And that's just what George W. Bush did yesterday, in rebuking Mr. Lott. Yet at the same time the party must convey to a select group of target voters the message — nudge nudge, wink wink — that it actually doesn't mean any of that nonsense, that it's really on their side. How can it do that? By having men who manifestly don't share the open-mindedness of the nation at large in key, powerful positions. And that's why Mr. Bush's rebuke was not followed by a call for Mr. Lott to step down Of course, Mr. Lott isn't alone in that role. The Bush administration's judicial nominations have clearly been chosen to give a signal of support to those target Southern voters. A striking example has just emerged: We've learned that Mr. Lott supported the right of Bob Jones University to keep its tax-exempt status even while banning interracial dating; supporting his position was none other than Michael McConnell, a controversial figure recently confirmed as an appeals judge. Notice, by the way, who really gets served in this charade. The open-minded majority gets ringing affirmations of its principles; but once the dust has settled, the people who agree with Mr. Lott get to keep him as majority leader, and get the judgeships too." i think it sucks that the "open-minded majority" of republicans refuse to accept this as the truth, and that they repeatedly come up with clever ways to explain it away. dan, in no way am i insinuating that you may agree with sen. lott, but i do hope that you can realize what is going on within your own party. it sucks that i'm having this debate over the internet, and that most of you are probably uninterested in what i have to say, so i'll just stop now. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:32 12/13/02 Fri WARNING: Contains Political commentary. Do not read if not interested. Now, here's the deal on the Republican Party as I see it. Sen. Lott made some terrible comments. One other example has been placed forward of similar comments he has made in the past. It sounds bad enough that I will forgo my normal dismissal (I do this for both Republican and Democratic attacks) on grounds that it is presented by a biased group that will not produce the context. I think this is one of those rare cases that the statement cannot have a changed meaning within a given context. That being said, I am forced to believe he should step down as majority leader. I don't like this because I feel he has done a good job in his leadership capacity, but those comments should bar him from serving in that capacity next session. As for being a senator at all....well I have no doubts that strong competition will emerge from both parties now come his next re-election bid, and I feel the voters of Mississippi should be able to decide. He does, in fact, represent them and if they endorse him despite of or because of his views so be it. Since his views are not mainstream he should not be allowed into a leadership role to further them. I would hope, though, that the voters of Mississippi select a better person. As for Strom Thurmond, well, he was an ardent segregationalist. Whether his views have changed over time, or he has chosen to curb them publicly I do not know. The fact of the matter is that South Carolina voters elected him because of or despite his views, but the Republican party has not allowed him the level of leadership one would expect from a senator that has been there as long as Sen Thurmond. He got his Senatorial fiefdom that the people of South Carolina deserved, but lacked the clout one would expect him to have. This is the category I beleive Sen Lott should be relegated to. As for this being an organized sect within the Republican Party, I believe it sucks that you can so self-rightously claim this is a fatal flaw. No, I do not beleive the Republican party caters in any way to people who are racist. The fact, though, is that these views are extereme right wing views. Since our system discourages the formation of third parties many of these people will side with the major party closest to their views. Hence they come to the Republicans. The Republicans do not go in search of them. As long as the GOP is the more conservative party it will get these votes whether it wants them or not (you cannot stop someone for voting for you). The same arguments can be turned on the Democratic party for other various sects. The extreme environmentalists come to mind. I doubt you can make a good argument (or at least are inclined to) for the industrial world stopping everything industrial. But, riots are very commonplace over events like WTO meetings. The analogy is not perfect, but I think it gets the idea across. Every party has its skeletons. The vast majority of these are not courted by the party, but rather the party would like to rid itself of them. Unfortunately that cannot be done. I apologize. This got a little longer than I anticipated, but there is my opinion. I am confident that you can provide another counterargument dwarfing my intelect, but this is why I enjoy our debates. At least I feel they are intelligent. Anyway, I suck for making you read all of this. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:12:52 12/13/02 Fri i'll try to keep this short, and say that if you want to continue this discussion, dan, what better time than next friday? "... they come to the Republicans. The Republicans do not go in search of them." i can't, in good conscience, agree with such a statement. why was trent lott (alledgedly) a dues paying member of the previoiusly mentioned council of conservative citizens (which, incidentally, just offered an amicus brief in support of the right to burn a cross, in the recent supreme court case dealing with the issue)? if you want to discount trent lott as an example, why would john ashcroft make the statement (to the neo-confederate, white supremacist magazine "southern partisan"), "your magazine also helps set the record straight. you've got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots like [robert e.] lee, [stonewall] jackson and [confederate president jefferson] davis. traditionalists must do more. i've got to do more. we've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda"? this is a quote i got off of the fairness and accuracy in reporting website, so please take that into consideration before trying to bring context into the picture. by all means, please check the site for yourself: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html and context aside, if republicans do not go in search of "them" why would ashcroft even make ANY statement to such an obviously racist publication? perhaps a better example: why did george w. bush go to bob jones university to deliver a speech during the south carolina primary in 2000? again, if the party didn't go in search of these people, why would bush feel a need to give a speech at that particular university (after losing the nh primary to john mccain)? and to offer up the example of extreme environmentalists, my whole point is that these "extremists" do not rise to positions of power within the democratic party. and also, in response to your statement that "these views are extreme right views," i would just like to point out that i don't believe racism can be classified as an extreme right view. for starters, there are racist ideas in both parties. racism defies political/ideological classification. somehow, however, people who we have agreed (at least lott and thurmond)are racist have been able to rise to positions of power within the republican party. actually, that was the only thing i said sucked in my original post. oh, and if you're going to say that thurmond was never allowed to gain too much power, are you arguing that chairman of such committes as judiciary and armed services aren't positions of power? to end, i think we can both agree, unless otherwise told, that our long posts back and forth have been sucky for all those who aren't the least bit interested in any of this. however, i must say that i think it sucks that anybody would not be interested, at all, in government (or at least voting in every major election). also, it sucks that i started this post with the words, "i'll try to keep this short," left out so many things i wanted to say, and still managed to write such a long-ass counter to some of the points brought up by dan. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:03:50 12/14/02 Sat I wholeheartedly agree that it sucks anyone would not be interested in the inner workings of THEIR government. I also believe it sucks that these people are the ones who generally complain most about the system. Now, for the sake of everyone else, I will keep this exceptionally short. So, if you think it sucks that I am cutting this debate off in favor of continuing it at Christmas dinner Friday, I am sorry. I'm going to quote Joe Souceray here. "Lott does not represent the typical Republican attitude on racial harmony any more than Bill Clinton represents the typical Democratic attitude on marital fidelity. Both parties have their share of morons, and we're sure getting to know quite a few of them lately." They both brought discredit to their party and the nation. Some housecleaning needs to be done, yes. But this is not a focused effort of the party. The rest of the column published in the Pioneer Press Friday can be found here: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/columnists/joe_soucheray/4726922.htm Whatever your thoughts on him, its a pretty good article. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:21:13 12/14/02 Sat i'm sorry, but i can't completely hold back on all of this until friday. dan, you are now focusing on trent lott, when i have brought up two other examples of questionable (at best) decisions by republican leaders, as they pertain to race in the united states. it sucks that you, apparently, didn't respond to any of my points in my last two posts (example: why did george w. bush go to bob jones university if, in fact, the republicans don't go to "them"?). and soucheray's quote is all well and good, but are we trying to equate racism with infidelity?? that analogy is completely rediculous, if only because BOTH parties have had their share of infidelity scandals amongst their leaders (the names gingrich and giuliani come to mind), but the republican party seems to have a monopoly on the racists (in leadership positions). your whole argument seems to be that both parties have morons, but that does nothing to explain WHY the republican morons are racist, and why those racists have been able to rise to positions of power. in other words, you are looking at the effect, and trying to deal with/explain that, instead of dealing with the cause. i think that sucks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: one more thing | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:30:40 12/13/02 Fri this one will be short (cross my heart): after rereading your post dan, i feel a need to say a couple more things. i have heard of no "extreme environmentalist" who called for the end of all things industrial. that is a patently unfair, and untrue, characterization in my mind. and protests against organizations such as the wto are, to my understanding, much more AGAINST corporate power and the developed world's dominance of will over the underdeveloped areas of the world (in the form of the wto, imf, world bank, etc.), and FOR general notions of global justice, than FOR environmentalism, per se. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 05:11:02 12/14/02 Sat Fair enough. Characterize it that way if you like. I don't think changing how we classify that conflict changes my argument any. For an example, look to the soon to be minority leader of the House. She's not quite as extreme by any means, but she's farther out there than most. It'll be interesting to see which direction she moves once she has power. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:38:48 12/14/02 Sat once again, how do racism and environmentalism equate in your argument? environmentalism is, at least, accepted in society, whereas racism has been reputiated time and time again in the united states (since the 60s). environmentalism falls under the umbrella of political ideology, whereas racism no longer does, in my (very humble) opinion. environmentalism has the interests of humanity in mind, while racism does not. no matter how you look at it, nancy pelosi's concern for the environment comes out of a belief that such a concern is in the best interests of not only our country, but all the people of the world. racism has a well defined history of violence and death in this country, environmentalism does not. on top of that, your argument completely shifts the focus from the original debate, which rests upon my statement that it sucks that there are still republican leaders with racist/white supremacist beliefs. you have done nothing to show me why that statement isn't true, which sucks. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:08:24 12/14/02 Sat I am just going to answer both threads here since I am tired of writing two simulataneous messages. Why did President Bush speak at Bob Jones University in 2000. He spoke at a lot of places. Speaking at a venue does not constitute complete agreement with the institutions policies. He made no attempts to congratulate the university for its racist practices, and, in fact, left the race issue completely alone. He did not attempt to recruit voters on issues of racism. Bush chose the school on its religious grounds. The religious right, as opposed to racists, are a group that the republican party actively courts. In my humble opinion, they probably felt they could focus on real issues and avoid the racist issues of the school. Probably not a smart move, but not one endorsing racism. John Ashcroft did speak to that periodical. Probably not a politically savvy move, but I do not believe a damning one either. This gets into more of a historical debate than a political one, but I see a clear distinction between the actual fighting of the civil war, and the reasons for fighting the war. Sammy, you know as well as anyone that I certainly am not a racist in any way shape or form. However, I hold people like Lee and Jackson in very high esteem. To them, slavery was the least of the things they were fighting for. I am happy that they did lose the war, but they fought it in a very honorable and professional way. Lee still has the best marks of any of the 50,000 or so cadets that have graduated West Point and his name is more visible than anyone else's on post. From my studies, I think that Lee and Jackson fought for ideals greater than slavery, but the general populace connects them only with slavery. I will defend his remarks on those grounds. Now, I believe it sucks that you are very selectively listening to my argument. I have concurred that it does suck that there are a very few racist leaders in the republican party. My argument is not that they are not racist nor that they should be safe in their jobs but that they are the exception and not the rule. In parties as large and diffused as in America some people are going to slip through the cracks that are not representative of the party's view. This does not necessarily make a difference to voters. Hell, Jesse Ventura got elected governor. I am not defending Lott, I am defending the party. Each has its share of morons, but that cannot lead to a condemnation of the party en masse. There are subtle effects of democratic racism as well (http://www.nysun.com/sunarticle.asp?artID=405), not that it makes any of it right, but that it does not condemn the party. If Lott does not go, then you might have an argument, but that matter is far from over and I will be disappointed if he serves another session as the leader of the party. Again it sucks that I am giving the very condensed version of what I should be saying, but this grows too long as it is. I also think it sucks that no one else will jump in on this. I'd like to hear what others have to say as well. But Sammy, for being so ungodly smart as you have always been, you do not suck. Merry Christmas all. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing (longest one yet) | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:46:05 12/14/02 Sat alright dan, every time i read what you say, i can't keep myself from responding: first, i agree that it would be nice to hear other points of view here. somehow, people like trent lott, strom thurmond, and jesse helms have risen to levels of LEADERSHIP in the republican party. majority leader is an elected position in the senate, which means, obviously, the rest of the party ELECTED lott to be their leader. that is the crux of my argument. no matter what you may say lee and jackson were fighting for, there is no way you can divorce slavery from amongst those principles which were central to the confederate army's purpose for fighting. i don't recall ever calling into question either of these men's military ability (i, too, see a difference between the actual fighting of the civil war, and the reasons behind the fighting), but please do not try to say that they weren't fighting for slavery. no matter how you look at it, you must ultimately come to the conclusion that the confederate army was fighting for the right to continue slavery. and in mentioning these two generals, and defending their military practices, you forget to mention jefferson davis as one of the people ashcroft mentioned. ashcroft was speaking to a magazine which has said things like: "Neither Jesus nor the apostles nor the early church condemned slavery, despite countless opportunities to do so, and there is no indication that slavery is contrary to Christian ethics or that any serious theologian before modern times ever thought it was." --Samuel Francis, Southern Partisan, Third Quarter/1995 On John Wilkes Booth: "His behavior was not only sane, but sensible. His background, loyalties, beliefs, and experiences had led him to that end." --Mark Brewer, Second Quarter/1990 Praised former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke as "a candidate concerned about 'affirmative' discrimination, welfare profligacy, the taxation holocaust ... a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal." --Fourth Quarter/1990 "Feminists, ethnic minorities, sodomites and other 'victims' of majority culture are demanding special recognition and privileged status." --Second Quarter/1992 and two of my favorites so far (in researching the publication): "Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, 'Where are the Americans?' for I met only Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans." --Patrick Brophy, Second Quarter/1991 "Melting Pot: An instrument by which distinct forms of distinct material are melted into a common sludge." --"The Partisan Dictionary," Spring/Summer 1981 (again, all of these were taken from the fairness and acuracy in reporting website) i repeat my question: why say ANYTHING to such a magazine? as for bush in 2000: i agree, speaking at a venue does not constitute complete agreement with the institution's practices. but it does constitute, at the very least, tacit approval. by the very nature of speaking at such a place during a campaign, you are sending a message that you support those people who live/work/go to school there, and you want their vote. let me remind you that bush had just lost the nh primary to mccain, and speaking at bob jones was tantamount to him reaching out to the university, and its supporters, for votes. as to not recruiting on race explicitly, my point in quoting paul krugman's article was that he didn't have to. doing so would cripple his efforts to get the "open-minded majority" of republicans on his side as well. to win, he needed both. also, in keeping with krugman's own opinion, i believe that "religious right" is, oftentimes, just a code word for "racist." it sucks that these people hide their racist beliefs behind a wall of supposed religious beliefs. my own beliefs aside, in this case, the religious right you speak of, and those people with racist practices, are one and the same. so if you are going to go to a place like bob jones university in an effort to reach out to the religious right, you are reaching out to racists. that is a plain fact. it doesn't matter if you only appeal to their religious beliefs. if you want to appeal to the religious right why not go somewhere else, like a church? and upon reading the article you mentioned, i honestly believe that it runs counter to everything you have been saying. is your stance that al sharpton is racist himself? or maybe that the party is trying to pull votes away from a black man? the article talks about donna brazille (who is black herself) trying to pull black voters AWAY from al sharpton by using a "coalition of local African-American candidates — like Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, and former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial — [that] could pick up enough delegates to have a say in the party platform and, potentially, a role as kingmakers." the democratic party is, understandably, a bit embarrassed by his pending candidacy (since he can rightly be painted as a bit of a racist himself). the "favorite son" plan mentioned is a plan to "increase black voters’ impact," while at the same time, to pull black voters away from al sharpton's questionable record on issues of racial harmony (there's no way around it, he's anti-semitic). where, may i ask, is the "subtle racism" in all of that? if anything, it shows a way that the republican party could have delt with its own racist candidates who embarrassed the party (i.e., lott, duke, helms, thurmond, etc., etc.). i guess it sucks that the republicans never did anything similar to brazille's plan, in attepmts get voters to vote for someone other than these "very few" racists. also, it sucks that you say things like "very few" and "exception and not the rule" as if to diminish the impact of admitting that there are ANY racists in the republican party's leadership. THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: sammy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:28:28 12/16/02 Mon Regarding Bush: It sucks that I didn’t think of this the first time. I thought of it a couple hours after my post on Dec. 14, but I wanted to wait and see how you might respond. However, I want to say it now, since I’ll probably forget it if I wait any longer – In what way does Bush leaving the race issue alone at Bob Jones defend him from my charges? I think it only serves to damn him, since, if he was there to appeal to the religious right (as you claim) and he did not endorse the University’s practices regarding race (as you also claim), then why did he not speak out AGAINST the University’s policies at the time? Why not say something along the lines of, “I’m here to appeal to this crowd on the basis of its deeply held religious beliefs. I feel that Christianity has lost much of its importance in modern day politics, and my candidacy is based on an effort to shift more focus to the good that comes from religion, in society. That is why I have proposed that federal funds be used to support faith-based programs in our communities. In coming here today, I hoped to appeal to you all on those grounds. However, I do not, in any way, support this University’s current ban on interracial dating. I think such a policy is counter to everything this nation stands for, blah blah blah” – You know, something like that. Obviously, saying something like that would have turned off many in the audience, which would have meant less votes in the SC primary. As I see it, there are only two ways of looking at his actions in choosing to speak at Bob Jones University: one, Bush was truly there to speak to the religious right, and in doing so, he saw a clear difference between reaching out to the religious right and reaching out to racists, in which case my post today applies; or two, Bush was concerned about recently losing the NH primary to McCain and he decided to play into the long-acknowledged Republican “Southern Strategy” (a term coined by Nixon, I believe, and described by Krugman in my post on Dec. 13), in which case my post from Saturday night applies. So, if you are trying to defend his visit to Bob Jones by saying that he “left the race issue alone,” I leave it to you to respond to my last post on Saturday, as well as this one today, since I believe the points brought up in this post have added a crucial element to my original argument from Saturday night. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing (longest one yet) | |
|
Author: Dan [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:39:07 12/17/02 Tue So my internet is finally working at a tolerable speed again. Our argument really boils down to just this: is the Republican party by its nature and leadership a racist party? We have agreed Trent Lott did wrong and has to go. We have agreed that racists do not belong in any leadership positions. We seem to disagree as to whether the party chose them FOR their racist views - either overtly or subtly. Until a few weeks ago no one ever questioned Trent Lott on his views of race. Looking back, there was a pattern, but not an overt one. If anyone had suspected of these views he would have never gained the power he had. That is my firm belief. Maybe that is a naive view, but in either case there will be some serious housecleaning throughout the party. If not by choice, then by political necessity. That is good, there is some housecleaning that needs to be done. But, I will stand by the belief that there is no intent to build any racist beliefs into the platform or political base of the Republican party. I know I did not answer any of your questions in this, but with all the finals this week I've lost most of my mental functioning. Three more days...... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Re: one more thing | |
|
Author: Brent [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:08:04 12/14/02 Sat I'll jump in here, although I will probably sound like a moron, with you guys who are the two most politically savvy people I know. I think we can all agree the both Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond both suck for the things they have thought/said. I also think it sucks that in 2002 we still have to have this debate on why the people in power in our country say things and think the way they do. Again, every assumption of a group in this debate tends to be the rule over the exception. We have to deal with all of this and it's crap we shouldn't have to. I just think that these views are that of a past and more stubborn and bitter generation. The south obviously still has it fair share of dixiecratic views, and we will never fully get racism to be a thing of the past, but in future elections, i see these people in power who openly or are even hinted to be racist will be weeded out. Strom was just voted by habit for so many years, nobody wants to say no to a 97 year old guy. At least I hope i'm not just being naive here, but I think it will get better in the future. We have to put up with these close minded people, and that it what sucks the most of all, that these are the people that represent our country as a whole, even if they are elected on state levels. I'll end it here, i had more to say but I couldn't verbalize everything correctly so this might have sounded unorganzied, but i will check back and write more. On a side note, I love the fact that 19 and 20 year olds are having this debate, this is more of whats right with america today [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |