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. (kinda long) | |
Author: sammy | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:01:57 12/13/02 Fri In reply to: Dan 's message, "Re: Closeted Racism in the G.O.P." on 09:46:06 12/12/02 Thu 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |