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: Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P. | |
Author: sammy | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:01:53 12/12/02 Thu In reply to: Dan 's message, "Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P." on 09:46:06 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |