Poll - Are Blacks Used as Tokens To Mask a Policy of Intentionally Racist Campaigning - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 03-11-2006, 04:47 AM

Disclaimer:There are no MSM sources in this OP... sources are confined to the White House website, Foxnews, NRO, the NRSC site, and a domain registered to the NRSC, FancyFord.com

My observation is that the POTUS and Republican party strategy is to install/sponsor "token" i.e., very unusual, and exceptional (adjectives similar to "odd" or "curiousities"; descriptions like, "one of a kind"), African Americans into high and influential appointed or elected positions, on the rare occasion when they come across an individual who satisfies their criteria...

...and....conversely...when the POTUS and Republican party identify an African American as a political opponent, a message with racial overtones of varying degrees of subtlety is aimed at the offending "target". The message I perceive in the NRSC's new, FancyFord.com smear website, is a not too subtle, racist attack, complete with the link to a "sub smear", titled "steppin out". I perceive a message that communicates to it's target audience that Rep. Harold Ford Jr., Democrat of Tennessee and member of the Congressional Black Caucus, can be compared to a "pimp", because of this descriprion of him on FancyFord.com:

Quote:

"Congressman Harold Ford Jr. likes to live the good life... perhaps a little too much. Lavish hotel stays. Fine dining. Couture suits. Parties with Playboy Playmates... all on his campaign contributor's dime."

Is this a "racist" attack? Does Rep. Ford deserve this smear, simply because he is perceived by the NRSC as a democrat trying to take away a currently republican seat in the U.S. senate, this coming november?

Contrast this with the Bush admin.'s "first move" to "manage" the slow start of it's Katrina disaster response....was the guy that they "trotted" out, a "token", intended to appeal to NOLA's largely African American distressed population?

Quote:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

August 31, 2005

Press Gaggle with Scott McClellan
Aboard Air Force One
En Route Andrews Air Force Base, MD

11:09 A.M. EDT

MR. McCLELLAN:

....Let's see. Just so that you all know, I think a couple of things that might be of interest to you all, just so you can know what the federal government is doing and how we're responding. In terms of the operational aspects, I think you should look at it this way: Secretary Chertoff is in charge of overseeing the operational side of things from Washington, D.C. Under Secretary Brown is in charge of overseeing the operational aspects from the region. And then you have the White House task force, which is really more of a -- it's really a coordinating body, and it's not an operational body. And that's being overseen by Claude Allen, who is head of the Domestic Policy Council....

Quote:

http://www.nrsc.org/newsdesk/document.aspx?ID=1844
NRSC Launches FancyFord.com
Website Highlights Congressman Harold Ford, Jr.’s Fancy Lifesty
Washington, DC —Today the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) launched a new website, http://www.FancyFord.com. The site highlights Harold Ford, Jr.’s (D-TN) fancy lifestyle and lavish campaign spending habits—most of which are financed by his campaign contributors. After the site’s launch, the NRSC issued the following statement:

“From his voting record to his extravagant lifestyle, Fancy Ford simply does not represent the values of ordinary Tennesseans,” said Dan Ronayne, NRSC Press Secretary

Visitors to FancyFord.com are invited to learn how to live the fancy life, just like Harold Ford, Jr. The site allows you “party, shop, relax, and dine” like fancy Harold Ford. A few highlights:....

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159445,00.html
On Monday night, there was a reception and dinner with GOP Sens. Elizabeth Dole (search) of North Carolina, the NRSC's chairwoman;....

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187531,00.html
Ex-Bush Aide Arrested on Theft Charges

Friday, March 10, 2006

COLLEGE PARK, Md. — A former domestic policy adviser to President Bush has been charged with theft for allegedly receiving phony refunds at department stores.

Claude Alexander Allen, 45, was arrested Thursday by Montgomery County police for allegedly claiming refunds for more than $5,000 worth of merchandise he did not buy, according to county and federal authorities.

Allen was the No. 2 official in the Health and Human Services Department when Bush nominated him in April 2003 to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. Bush nominated Allen to the court again a year later, but he never received a Senate vote.

During his confirmation hearing, Allen was questioned about his use of the word "queer" when he was a press aide to Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., in 1984. Allen said he didn't intend it as a slur against gay people.

In early 2005, Bush hired Allen as a domestic policy adviser. He resigned abruptly on Feb. 9, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family.

Allen has been under investigation since at least January for the alleged thefts on 25 occasions at Target and Hecht's stores, said police spokesman Lt. Eric Burnett. Police reviewed his credit card records to track his purchase.

Police believe Allen would buy items, take them to his car, then return to the store with his receipt. He would select the same items, then take them to the store return desk and show the receipt from the first purchase. Using that method, he would receive credit for the second items on his credit cards, Burnett said.

Allen was allegedly seen Jan. 2 at a Target in Gaithersburg, Md., taking items off the shelf that he then took the return desk. He had a receipt for the merchandise, was given a refund and left.

The items he allegedly received fraudulent refunds for included clothing, a Bose theater system and stereo equipment. Some purchases were for as little as $2.50.

After the news of Allen's arrest surfaced Friday, the White House provided an account of their knowledge of the events that led up to it.

The night of Jan. 2, after the alleged incident at the Target in Gaithersburg, he called White House chief of staff Andy Card to inform him of what had happened. The next morning, he spoke again, this time in person, with Card and White House counsel Harriet Miers, assuring them it was all a misunderstanding, press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Allen told his bosses there was merely confusion with his credit card because he had moved several times. "He assured them that he had done nothing wrong and the matter would be cleared up," McClellan said.

Allen told White House officials later that he wanted to resign because the job was too stressful on his family. His last day at the White House was Feb. 17, McClellan said.

The president first learned of Allen's planned departure and the January incident in early February, but since Allen had passed the usual background checks and had no other prior issues that White House officials were aware of, "He was given the benefit of the doubt," McClellan said.

"If it is true, no one would be more shocked and more outraged than the president," McClellan said. Allen has had no contact with the White House since his arrest.

Allen's arrest was the talk of the White House late Friday, with many of his former colleagues expressing surprise and sadness.

Calls to Allen's home in Gaithersburg, a Washington suburb, were not returned.

Allen was released on his own recognizance by a Montgomery District Court judge.

Before joining the Bush administration, Allen was Virginia Health and Human Resources secretary.

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...101498,00.html
Former Helms Staffer Endures Judicial Confirmation Hearing

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

WASHINGTON — Federal appellate nominee Claude Allen (search) told a Senate committee Tuesday he didn't mean it as a slur against homosexuals when he used the word "queer" while working as a press aide to a conservative Republican senator.

Allen also said he was "conflicted" about the 1983 filibuster mounted by his then-boss, GOP Sen. Jesse Helms (search) of North Carolina, against a proposed federal holiday for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

"It was the most difficult day for me in my life," said Allen, who could become the second black appeals judge on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search), if confirmed. "I believed that Dr. King deserved a holiday."

Now deputy secretary at the Health and Human Services Department, Allen said that when a North Carolina reporter quoted him as using the word "queer" while he was Helms' press secretary during the senator's 1984 re-election campaign, Allen said he meant it in the sense of "odd, out of the ordinary, unusual" instead of a slur for homosexual.

During Helms' campaign against former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt, Allen was quoted as saying Hunt was vulnerable because his campaign could be "linked with the queers." He also was quoted as saying the Hunt campaign could be connected with homosexuals, labor unions, radical feminists and socialists.

Allen immediately apologized for anyone who misunderstood him, he told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I don't believe that we should use words that are pejorative in nature," Allen said. "I teach my children to have respect and treat people with the very same dignity that they want to be treated with."

The Richmond, Va., court, which hears federal appeals from Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, serves a population that is about 22 percent minorities, the most of any circuit. The number of judges on the 15-member court from each state has historically been proportionate to that state's population.

But after Democrats blocked a Helms nominee, the North Carolinian known as "Senator No" refused to allow any of President Clinton's judicial nominees from North Carolina on that court.

Clinton finally got around Helms' blockade by nominating Roger Gregory of Virginia, who became the first black judge on that circuit but took what was considered to be a North Carolina seat. Helms has since retired.....

Quote:

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0407070947.asp
July 07, 2004, 9:47 a.m.
Claude Allen & His Enemies
Understanding the judge fights.

By C. Boyden Gray

In April 2003, President Bush announced his intention to nominate Claude Alexander Allen to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which reaches from Virginia to South Carolina. Sixteen months later, as with so many of the president's other nominees — courtesy of Senate Democrats — Allen is still waiting.

The opposition to Allen is directed by left-wing interest groups, from where Senate Democrats increasingly take their marching orders. The National Organization for Women, for instance, has hit upon a most remarkable basis for opposing Allen: "Allen's three children are home-schooled." Never mind the fact that centuries of American children have been so educated; never mind the fact that our Founding Fathers mostly learned at the knees of their parents. In this day and age, apparently, children not educated in state-run, union staffed, federally subsidized schools are a basis for suspicion.

Or, take the self-proclaimed Alliance for Justice, whose mission is to keep the federal bench safe from Republican appointees. Their great criticism of Allen is that he has worked to advance an "abstinence-only-until-marriage agenda." Therefore, in their words: "Everything about Allen's record suggests that...he would be unable to separate his personal extremist views from what the law requires."

Extremist views? Educating his children and promoting sexual responsibility? One might think these are the marks of an excellent judicial selection — yet these are the bases for strident liberal opposition to Claude Allen's nomination. Why would NOW, the Alliance, or any of their ideological ilk take such a stand? The answer is an instructive window into their elitist and anti-democratic manifesto for America......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184603,00.html
Monday, February 13, 2006

......WALLACE: All right. Let's talk about substance. In 2004, 11 percent of blacks voted for President Bush. According to a recent poll, only 2 percent — the numbers have been to some degree disputed, but 2 percent of blacks said that they are members of the Republican Party.

Clearly, the vast majority of blacks don't think this president and this party have much to offer them.........

I have tried to present a sensitive subject without "turning off" the folks who I think should contemplate the "strategy", that contrasts the treatment of two ideologically and politically opposed African Americans, by the politcal strategists and party leaders. Is the "sponsored guy", the one who was intended by president Bush to be a federal judge with lifetime tenure, a "token", a curiousity who once worked for openly racist senator Jesse Helms?

Is the "other guy", a victim of a racist message and smear, intended to strengthen, the "base"? Have republicans aimed their "handling" of either Claude Allen or democratic senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr., as a message to other African Americans, at all....or are the polling results that Foxnew's Chris Wallace describes, a sign that republicans ignore blacks now as a politcal consideration, and all of their race related strategies are directed at non-African American voters?

maximusveritas · 03-11-2006, 10:23 AM

I'm not really sure what you mean by "Republican race based discrimination policy". Are they ignoring black voters? I don't think so. The very presence of these tokens seems to contradict that idea. They know that by having a few tokens and talking up some faith issues, they can attract some naive black voters to their side.
At the same time, I don't think they have to play to the racist elements in the country because those elements are already Republicans. In fact, that's the GOP base. So while the GOP may send out a few signals here and there to keep them on board, they don't need to openly court those voters.
Like most racists in this country, the GOP presents an outer facade of being open to all races, while only showing it's racist face when behind closed doors.

So is the Ford site racist? I don't think so. However, I do think it is extremely hypocritical for the party of Abramoff and the Dukestir to challenge the Democrats on this issue. In fact, while looking up the site, I found out that the Democrats have already launched a response in the form of a new site, http://www.veryfancyfrist.com.

Ustwo · 03-11-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

In fact, that's the GOP base.

Yes the GOP base are the racists. *sigh*

docbungle · 03-11-2006, 03:43 PM

I was going to reply to Host, but then I read maximusveritas and lost my train of thought. Did you just call republicans racist? Yes, you sure did. Or did you call racists republicans? Either way, that's the most ignorant thing I've read in weeks.

maximusveritas · 03-11-2006, 03:58 PM

Am I calling all Republicans racist? Of course not. What I am saying is that the racist elements in this country nowadays are part of the GOP base, meaning that they will not cross over to vote for Democrats. They are solid GOP voters and therefore, do not need to be wooed like minority voters or moderates need to be.
If you are going to deny the existence of racists within the Republican party, I'm afraid you are the ignorant one (or at least, you're in denial).

Ustwo · 03-11-2006, 04:48 PM

No you called the GOP base racist.

docbungle · 03-11-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Am I calling all Republicans racist? Of course not.

Um...define GOP for me. I'm missing you here.

Quote:

They are solid GOP voters and therefore, do not need to be wooed like minority voters or moderates need to be.

Bullshit. Again, you're saying racists are solid GOP voters. You can't possibly expect to be taken seriously?

Quote:

If you are going to deny the existence of racists within the Republican party, I'm afraid you are the ignorant one (or at least, you're in denial).

I'm denying no such thing. Your lack of perspective is astonishing.

[/QUOTE]

Bill O'Rights · 03-11-2006, 09:09 PM

Maximus, do you have anything to back up the comment in question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

I don't think they have to play to the racist elements in the country because those elements are already Republicans. In fact, that's the GOP base.

I have a hard time with that...but, I'm willing to overlook it as a misstatement. It happens. However...

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

What I am saying is that the racist elements in this country nowadays are part of the GOP base, meaning that they will not cross over to vote for Democrats.

Are you saying that all racists are Republican? Frankly, I don't know that they are not. But somehow, I have a hard time swallowing that. Is there anything that you can use to back that up? Even if it's from something ridiculously irreputable?

Marvelous Marv · 03-11-2006, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Am I calling all Republicans racist? Of course not. What I am saying is that the racist elements in this country nowadays are part of the GOP base, meaning that they will not cross over to vote for Democrats. They are solid GOP voters and therefore, do not need to be wooed like minority voters or moderates need to be.
If you are going to deny the existence of racists within the Republican party, I'm afraid you are the ignorant one (or at least, you're in denial).

Wasn't it Jesse Jackson who just said that if New Orleans elects a white mayor, it will be because of racism?

Personally, I get a big chuckle out of the so-called non-prejudiced Dems who keep telling blacks they can't make it on their own. Which means racists (like Jackson) are part of the Democratic base as well.

So what's the big surprise here? That there is widespread racism in America?

tecoyah · 03-12-2006, 02:51 AM

Racism knows no political party...it crosses all barriers, and seeps into every single one of us at one point or another. To pretend otherwise is to be blind to reality. To claim one party is "More" racist than another does nothing but piss people off, as there is really no way to justify the statement. It would be all to easy to make an argument the other way around.

So...either post something worthy of discussion....or We will close this thread.

host · 03-12-2006, 05:44 AM

Bill O'Rights...I can offer some things for members to consider:

No "one liner" responses on this thread, please!

Is it improper to discuss what I've put up on this thread, in view of this?
Considering what is in my last post and in this one, is it reasonable to refuse to acknowledge that there is anything uniquely wrong with the dominant party's race relations, when it comes to campaign strategy, political appointment criteria, candidate selection, and it's "message" to African Americans?

By controlling two branches of government and the apointments to the third branch, a dominant political party and it's leadership come under closer scrutiny and much more criticism than they would if there was more balance.
In '98 Republicans controlled only half of one branch...the House, and they leveraged their limited power in an attempt to bring down the executive or to prevent him from governing. If you've voted ...in the thread poll...against any consideration that there was any valid criticism contained in my first post, can you make an argument that there is nothing to consider in my points and references that could influence you to reconsider your initial vote?

Since the following became known, why have you who will probably disagree with what I've posted, left it to me, because of your unwillingness to intiate any discussion of this problem, to emphasize that the time to discuss these poll results and the issues that I've raised is necessary and overdue on a political forum. I know that I'm raising sensitive issues, I took a full day to think about what to post, and I haven't voted in my own poll! If you can rebut my observation that what is happening in the Bush administration with regard to "token" appointments, and in a campaign strategy by the national party organization that presents something like FancyFord.com as reasonable, race neutral campaigning or indicates a Party with a message of INCLUSION to African Americans and to homosexuals, I think that the rest of us would be interested in seeing you do it.

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...n16rights.html
The San Diego Union-Tribune

Blacks celebrate, criticize president

By William Douglas
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

October 16, 2005

.....An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last week found that only <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184603,00.html">2 percent</a> of African-Americans approve of the job he's doing, down from 14 percent in the same poll last month and 23 percent in a July survey.

There is a problem, and because one party dominates, largely due to it's success in executing it's "Southern Strategy", since at least 1964, it falls to supporters of that party to do what RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman tried to do.

If the WaPo had the following point "wrong", what was Reagan's actual intent:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

.....The former actor and California governor offended blacks when he kicked off his 1980 general election campaign by promoting "states rights" -- once southern code for segregation -- in Philadelphia, Miss., scene of the murder of three civil rights workers 16 years before.....

What was RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman concerned enough about to do as reported here:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071302342.html
RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

By Mike Allen

Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A04

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."
"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."........

Why was Rush Limbaugh so upset with Mehlman for his comments about the "Southern Strategy"?

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140004
Thu, Jul 14, 2005 6:40pm EST
Limbaugh blasted Mehlman's renunciation of GOP racial tactics: "Republicans are going to go bend over and grab the ankles"

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman's plans to apologize for his party's notorious Southern Strategy at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Responding to Mehlman's planned renunciation of the race-based electoral strategy, Limbaugh accused Republicans of planning "to go bend over and grab the ankles.".......

Isn't it kind of hypocritical and dysfunctional to have Claude Allen operating with no advocacy for the interests of African Americans that was ever publicized by the White House, in his five year tenure there as a "top official" (#2 in HHS and then a year as chief domestic policy advisor, with a salary equal to Roves and Andy Card's $161,000...) and then to "trot him out" to "talk to his people", in an attempt to demonstrate to African Americans marching in Washington in mid October, 45 days after Katrina, that Bush had ""one of them" in his "inner circle", who could now reassure them by mouthing a "plug" for his boss. At the time, Bush's approval among African Americanc had plummetted from 23 percent in July, to just 2 percent, 3-1/2 months later. If the following isn't a glaring example of tokenism, how would you describe it?

Quote:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...n16rights.html
The San Diego Union-Tribune

Blacks celebrate, criticize president

By William Douglas
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE

October 16, 2005

.....An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last week found that only 2 percent of African-Americans approve of the job he's doing, down from 14 percent in the same poll last month and 23 percent in a July survey.

The September poll revealed that most African-Americans believe race played a major factor in the federal government's response to Katrina. Asked if the Bush administration would have responded more quickly to Katrina if the affected area were a more affluent white suburban community, 52 percent of African-Americans said they strongly agreed with the premise while 18 percent said they agreed somewhat.

Claude Allen, Bush's domestic policy adviser, said the president is responding to the needs of African-Americans in New Orleans and other Gulf Coast regions severely damaged by Katrina.

Just the mere fact you have pictures of the president on TV embracing grieving mothers, embracing pastors of churches that have been destroyed," Allen said. "That speaks about the personal character of our president, who is truly concerned about healing our nation.

Allen said Bush is working to ensure that more minority firms receive contracts in the Gulf Coast rebuilding efforts. But he stressed that minority companies will not get contracts as part of a set-aside program that targets them. Instead, Bush will stick to a belief that his polices will uplift the poor, minorities and the undereducated while benefiting the rest of the population.

I much prefer having the opportunity to eat from the whole pie, not simply a small piece of pie that separates me based upon my race," said Allen, who is black.

Claude Allen almost got a Bush lifetime appointment to sit on the second highest court in the land...and, as my last post contained documentation of,
Allen was designated along with "Brownie" to be the co-leader of the White House...and federal government Katrina Disaster Relief response. Were those reasonable appointments, and is it reasonable for a National Poltical party to keep it's chairman, Ken Mehlman, if he is gay, as reported, or it's House rules committee Chairman, David Dreier, described as a gay man in many reports, living closeted, secret lives, because the Party political platform and message leaves them with no other choice, except to resign their offices? Was Claude Allen only permitted to exhibit an advocacy for, and engage in a dialogue with, other Black Americans....in a PR emergency ?

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

.....Now, (in 2003) Allen is one of two African Americans nominated by Bush for vacancies on the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, a powerful panel one stop short of the U.S. Supreme Court that handles cases from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas. Republicans and Democrats have fought for years over the racial and political makeup of the court, which has but one black judge.

Democrats are no angels, but even RNC Chairman, quoted above, described their efforts to represent African Americans, politically. The ball is in your court if you attempt to post without backing your points. I'll be happy to examine and react to points that show democrats to be part of the problem.
Please try to back your points with references that compete with a level as thorough and reliable as the examples that I've posted. Please show me the courtesy of responding to some of my questions and offer opinions as to the merits and the details of my arguments.

maximusveritas · 03-12-2006, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

Racism knows no political party...it crosses all barriers, and seeps into every single one of us at one point or another. To pretend otherwise is to be blind to reality. To claim one party is "More" racist than another does nothing but piss people off, as there is really no way to justify the statement. It would be all to easy to make an argument the other way around.

So...either post something worthy of discussion....or We will close this thread.

I'll refrain from discussing it after this, but I do disagree. Sure it pisses people off, but it's still certainly worthy of discussion. There's no way to prove it, but there's no way to prove that racism is still pervasive either. That's just your opinion and it would be just as easy to say that racism is now virutally non-existant (in fact, many Republicans make that very argument). This is just a consequence of racism having been forced underground.

However, by looking at the history of race and politics in the South, you can clearly see that it is the Republican Party that has catered to and drawn in the racist elements of the past. That's not in dispute. The only question is whether it is still going on. In my opinion, the Southern Strategy is not dead, as Ken Mehlman would have us believe. Check out Lee Atwater's comments on the use of code words to continue the racial division of the past while pushing a new "Northern Strategy". What I've said is not controversial. There is plenty of scholarship on this topic.

Perhaps I did mis-use the term "GOP base", but I'm not even sure if that phrase has an official definition anyway, so I don't see why people are getting hung up on it except as a diversion from really discussing this issue.
As far as Marvelous Marv's comments about the Democrats doing the same thing with African Americans, I agree. Look at Hillary Clinton's controversial remarks on MLK Day. Even they can't afford to be open about it anymore.

Even though all that is related to the topic at hand, it is a bit off-point, so I'll drop it.

djtestudo · 03-12-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

I'll refrain from discussing it after this, but I do disagree. Sure it pisses people off, but it's still certainly worthy of discussion. There's no way to prove it, but there's no way to prove that racism is still pervasive either. That's just your opinion and it would be just as easy to say that racism is now virutally non-existant (in fact, many Republicans make that very argument). This is just a consequence of racism having been forced underground.

However, by looking at the history of race and politics in the South, you can clearly see that it is the Republican Party that has catered to and drawn in the racist elements of the past. That's not in dispute. The only question is whether it is still going on. In my opinion, the Southern Strategy is not dead, as Ken Mehlman would have us believe. Check out Lee Atwater's comments on the use of code words to continue the racial division of the past while pushing a new "Northern Strategy". What I've said is not controversial. There is plenty of scholarship on this topic.

Perhaps I did mis-use the term "GOP base", but I'm not even sure if that phrase has an official definition anyway, so I don't see why people are getting hung up on it except as a diversion from really discussing this issue.
As far as Marvelous Marv's comments about the Democrats doing the same thing with African Americans, I agree. Look at Hillary Clinton's controversial remarks on MLK Day. Even they can't afford to be open about it anymore.

Even though all that is related to the topic at hand, it is a bit off-point, so I'll drop it.

I think the problem with what you are saying about a "GOP base" is that it is like saying the Democratic base is ultraliberal communists who burn SUV dealerships and believe anyone who says the words "US military" in a positive tone is a babykilling imperialist.

I personally believe racism DOES still exist, mostly because it is impossible to eliminate something like that while we are all still human. However, I don't think that it exists to the extent many would like us to believe.

It can definately cross party lines as well. In Maryland, as an example, the Democrats have spent forty years telling the black voters in Baltimore and PG County that they are the party for them, when the highest office held in the state's history by a black person is our Republican Lieutenent Governer, who is also running for Senate against two Democrats: a white guy the party is backing, and a black guy they are trying their damndest to ignore.

The point is, it is both parties that are using minorities for thier own purposes, so to single out the Republicans is to show extreme bias in thinking.

host · 03-14-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

I think the problem with what you are saying about a "GOP base" is that it is like saying the Democratic base is ultraliberal communists who burn SUV dealerships and believe anyone who says the words "US military" in a positive tone is a babykilling imperialist.

I personally believe racism DOES still exist, mostly because it is impossible to eliminate something like that while we are all still human. However, I don't think that it exists to the extent many would like us to believe.

It can definately cross party lines as well. In Maryland, as an example, the Democrats have spent forty years telling the black voters in Baltimore and PG County that they are the party for them, when the highest office held in the state's history by a black person is our Republican Lieutenent Governer, who is also running for Senate against two Democrats: a white guy the party is backing, and a black guy they are trying their damndest to ignore.

The point is, it is both parties that are using minorities for thier own purposes, so to single out the Republicans is to show extreme bias in thinking.

djtestudo...before I invest in what it is required to reply to you in detail, I want to remind you that the last time that I responded to your reference to a Maryland politician, I received no reply from you....
here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...do#post2019672

If you were African American, how does Michael Steele compare to John Lewis, and how do you supose the recent "record" of the Bush administration and the effort, on a local level, to push through new "Jim Crow" voting laws, "play" to African Americans?

Is it your position that John Lewis, permits Democrats, to "use" him, in any way that is similar to the "poster boy", role that Steele is used to playing?

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161710,00.html
Ehrlich Brushes Off Country Club Dust-Up
Wednesday, July 06, 2005

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Gov. Robert Ehrlich (search), responding to complaints about a fund-raiser at a golf club that critics say does not have any black members, described the flap Tuesday as "all a bunch of nothing."

.....Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (search), the state's first black lieutenant governor, said Tuesday in an interview with The AP that he had not talked with Ehrlich about the golf tournament that raised $100,000 for the governor's re-election bid and didn't know if it was appropriate to use the club as a location for a fund-raiser.

"I don't know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don't play golf. It's not an issue with me," Steele said.

Steele's comment that the membership was not an issue and he had not talked to Ehrlich about the fund-raiser last month drew criticism from two black Democratic lawmakers.

Sen. Lisa Gladden of Baltimore said as a black lieutenant governor, Steele "ought to be more sensitive. He ought to be the first person out front speaking of injustice everywhere. It's bigger th.......

Quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108675,00.html
Bios: Civil Rights Leaders
Friday, January 16, 2004

The following are profiles of some of the leaders of the civil rights movement:

JOHN LEWIS

AGE: 63

CAREER HIGHLIGHTS: Chaired the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee from 1963 to 1966; one of the "Big Six" keynote speakers at the March on Washington in 1963; co-led 1965 Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., which led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act; elected in 1986 to U.S. House of Representatives, representing Georgia's 5th District, and he is serving his ninth term.

Quote:

http://www.accessmontgomery.com/apps...603030343/1001
1960s Selma sheriff won't back down

By Alvin Benn
Montgomery Advertiser

......The most violent incident occurred on the Edmund Pettus Bridge, located two blocks from the courthouse.

On March 7, 1965, about 600 black activists were attempting to march to Montgomery to urge elimination of ballot box barriers, including recitation for blacks of complex legal documents.

Instead, they were greeted by Alabama state troopers and Clark's mounted posse, and wound up being tear-gassed and clubbed. Captured by television cameras, the confrontation shocked the nation.

Clark describes what became known as "Bloody Sunday" as the "bridge deal." He said he has doubts anyone was injured that day even though film and photographs show demonstrators being beaten by club-swinging troopers.

Lewis, a Troy native who now is a congressman from Georgia, is shown on the ground. A trooper is above him -- about to hit him on the head with a billy club. Lewis wound up with a concussion.

"They all came and just flopped down," Clark said of the marchers. "Some might have hit their head when they fell down, but they weren't knocked down. They fell down all at once in one big swoop."

Selma historian Alston Fitts was astounded by Clark's recollection, calling him "delusional."

"The record speaks for itself," Fitts said this week. "There were 55 patients treated that day. The hospital records are on file at the Old Depot Museum. I think (Clark) is trying to rewrite history in his own mind."..........

Quote:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...,5162569.story
Bush not strong on diversity
Newsday analysis of personnel records creates a snapshot of political appointees
By Tom Brune
Washington Bureau

August 30, 2004

......But the Bush administration is not nearly as diverse as it appears in that picture, particularly when it comes to blacks and women, according to an analysis by Newsday of personnel records that created a snapshot of political appointees.

And Bush's overall record of diversity pales when compared to the standard set by his predecessor, President Bill Clinton, for filling the roughly 2,800 political posts that form a presidential administration.

Blacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton, the snapshot shows. Women won 36 percent of Bush's appointments, noticeably fewer than the 44 percent of Clinton's.

Overall, the Bush administration gave more than half, 54 percent, of its political positions to white men. Clinton awarded 57 percent of his jobs to women and minorities.

A diverse cabinet

The snapshot does confirm Bush's claim that he has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval of any Republican president, creating a profile that nears the record-setting diversity of Clinton.

But it also shows that just below those highly visible positions -- in the hundreds of little known but important appointments to senior executive posts that don't need Senate confirmation -- the diversity of the Bush administration fades.

Under Clinton, women held 43 percent and blacks 13 percent of the senior executive posts, and 45 percent went to white men. Under Bush, women won just 24 percent and blacks 6 percent of the jobs, and 66 percent went to white men.......

.....Satisfied with numbers

The White House reviewed Newsday's data and said it found nothing anomalous and that it was comfortable with the numbers and ratios, spokesman Trent Duffy said.

"The president chooses those professionals who can best help him enact his agenda and give the American people the highest quality government that they deserve," he said.........

......Last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, chaired by Bush appointee Cari Dominguez, voted unanimously to eliminate affirmative action for federal employment, a major policy shift that has broad implications.

Quietly changed

In quietly adopting a new policy, the commission scrapped the decades-old requirements that federal agencies set goals for hiring and promotion and that they target minorities and women for special assistance.

Those steps are similar to the affirmative action that the government requires of federal contractors and programs used by many states and cities.

Under the new relaxed federal policy, federal agencies must examine statistics, but only to look for barriers to free and open competition for jobs to everybody, including white men.

Dominguez declined to comment. EEOC staffer Catherine McNamara said the policy needed to be updated to reflect Supreme Court decisions, demographics and the changing nature of discrimination......

........Sincerity or strategy?

Mayer said Bush is sincere in his pursuit of black votes and endorsement of diversity.

But John D. Skrentny of the University of California San Diego, an expert on affirmative action, said Bush is employing "a political strategy" that dates to President Richard M. Nixon.

In it, Republicans nominate very conservative minorities or women for top jobs or judgeships to place diversity-minded liberals in an awkward position. Bush's father did that when he nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Skrentny said Bush is following his father's example.........

.........Yet overall, Bush has nominated fewer blacks and women than Clinton -- a third of his candidates compared with more than half of Clinton's.

Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and an authority on federal judicial selection, credits Bush for embracing diversity.

But, he said, the Bush administration has focused more on finding candidates with a conservative philosophy like the one held by Thomas.

"With Clinton, diversity trumped philosophy," Goldman said. "With Bush, philosophy trumps diversity."

Quote:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/103004U.shtml
Bush Seeks Limit to Suits Over Voting Rights
By David G. Savage and Richard B. Schmitt
The Los Angeles Times

Friday 29 October 2004

Administration lawyers argue that only the Justice Department, not the voters, may sue to enforce provisions in the Help America Vote Act.

Washington - Bush administration lawyers argued in three closely contested states last week that only the Justice Department, and not voters themselves, may sue to enforce the voting rights set out in the Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election.

Veteran voting-rights lawyers expressed surprise at the government's action, saying that closing the courthouse door to aspiring voters would reverse decades of precedent.

Since the civil rights era of the 1960s, individuals have gone to federal court to enforce their right to vote, often with the support of groups such as the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, the League of Women Voters or the state parties. And until now, the Justice Department and the Supreme Court had taken the view that individual voters could sue to enforce federal election law.

But in legal briefs filed in connection with cases in Ohio, Michigan and Florida, the administration's lawyers argue that the new law gives Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft the exclusive power to bring lawsuits to enforce its provisions. These include a requirement that states provide "uniform and nondiscriminatory" voting systems, and give provisional ballots to those who say they have registered but whose names do not appear on the rolls.

"Congress clearly did not intend to create a right enforceable" in court by individual voters, the Justice Department briefs said.

In one case the Sandusky County Democratic Party sued Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, arguing that the county's voters should be permitted to file provisional ballots even if they go to the wrong polling place on election day.

The Justice Department intervened as a friend of the court on Blackwell's side........

Quote:

http://www.ajc.com/today/content/epa...dc1d200d5.html
Voter ID memo stirs tension
Sponsor of disputed Georgia legislation told feds that blacks in her district only vote if they are paid to do so.
Bob Kemper, Sonji Jacobs - Staff
Friday, November 18, 2005

The chief sponsor of Georgia's voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls," and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud.

The newly released Justice Department memo quoting state Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) was prepared by department lawyers as the federal government considered whether to approve the new law. It also says that despite Republican assurances the law would not disenfranchise elderly, poor and black voters, Susan Laccetti Meyers, the staff adviser for the Georgia House of Representatives, told the Justice Department "the Legislature did not conduct any statistical analysis of the effect of the photo ID requirement on minority voters."

It cites analyses showing that, in fact, the effects of the law --- which will require Georgians seeking to vote to present a driver's license or an identification card for which they must pay --- could fall disproportionately on blacks. It concludes that the state had failed to show the law would not weaken minority voting strength, and recommends that the attorney general's office formally object to it.

However, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in August approved the law. Last month, a judge suspended the photo ID requirement after finding the law imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and will not effectively combat voter fraud. A lawsuit in the case continues...........

..... Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and veteran of the civil rights movement, derided Burmeister's remarks.

"It's unbelievable that any elected official would say something like this. It doesn't have any, any merit," Lewis said. "This is an affront to every black voter and would-be black voter not just in my district but in the state of Georgia."

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta) called Burmeister's claim "reprehensible demagoguery."

"That is racist," he said. "I think the African-American community deserves an apology.".......

joshbaumgartner · 03-14-2006, 02:23 PM

The majority of the power brokers of the GOP are not racists, not really anyway. Classists to be sure, but not racists. Of course being classist means that certain races do get the shaft because most people in the right class are white. But is that really racism? I don't think so, and painting it as such misses the point of the real dangers in the GOP's attitudes.

There are some very racist GOPers however. Of course, there are some racist Dems too. However, it is the classism in the GOP that allows the racists to pretty strongly pursue their ends under the cover of the classist agenda of the party at large. Things like massive tax breaks for the richest elites coupled with declining access to vital services for the poorest Americans is of course going to be disproportionately beneficial to whites, and negative to blacks, just based on the simple statistical reality of demographics. So the majority of the GOP big wigs who only care about one color--Green--provide the real momentum for this agenda to line their own pockets, and the actual racists back them up because it cements the economic weakness of minorities.

Thus I sympathise with folks like Host that see the racism inherent in GOP policies, I just don't think it means that Republicans can be assumed to be racist.

djtestudo · 03-14-2006, 07:51 PM

Sorry host, but it appears that only one of those articles has any remote bering on what I said, and that is only because it involves the state of Maryland.

Even if you didn't want to talk about Michael Steele, it still also ignores the main point that you seem to be ignoring, that if you want to say one side is using blacks for their own purposes without bringing the other side into it as well then there is no sense discussing this further.

View Poll Results: Are Blacks Tokens to Mask Intentionally Racist Republican Policy
There is no Republican race based discrimination policy.	13	56.52%
Republican Strategy is Color Blind, but Claude Allen and FancyFord.com seem kinda odd.	0	0%
Claude Allen Might be a Token, and FancyFord.com Might Convey a Racially Derogatory Message	2	8.70%
Racially Offensive FancyFord.com and Tokenism are Intended to Play to Likely Republican Voters.	8	34.78%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

03-11-2006, 10:23 AM	#2 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I'm not really sure what you mean by "Republican race based discrimination policy". Are they ignoring black voters? I don't think so. The very presence of these tokens seems to contradict that idea. They know that by having a few tokens and talking up some faith issues, they can attract some naive black voters to their side. At the same time, I don't think they have to play to the racist elements in the country because those elements are already Republicans. In fact, that's the GOP base. So while the GOP may send out a few signals here and there to keep them on board, they don't need to openly court those voters. Like most racists in this country, the GOP presents an outer facade of being open to all races, while only showing it's racist face when behind closed doors. So is the Ford site racist? I don't think so. However, I do think it is extremely hypocritical for the party of Abramoff and the Dukestir to challenge the Democrats on this issue. In fact, while looking up the site, I found out that the Democrats have already launched a response in the form of a new site, http://www.veryfancyfrist.com. Last edited by maximusveritas; 03-11-2006 at 10:26 AM..

03-11-2006, 03:43 PM	#4 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	I was going to reply to Host, but then I read maximusveritas and lost my train of thought. Did you just call republicans racist? Yes, you sure did. Or did you call racists republicans? Either way, that's the most ignorant thing I've read in weeks. __________________ Bad Luck City

03-11-2006, 04:48 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	No you called the GOP base racist. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

03-12-2006, 02:51 AM	#10 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	Racism knows no political party...it crosses all barriers, and seeps into every single one of us at one point or another. To pretend otherwise is to be blind to reality. To claim one party is "More" racist than another does nothing but piss people off, as there is really no way to justify the statement. It would be all to easy to make an argument the other way around. So...either post something worthy of discussion....or We will close this thread. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha Last edited by tecoyah; 03-12-2006 at 02:54 AM..

03-11-2006, 03:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Am I calling all Republicans racist? Of course not. What I am saying is that the racist elements in this country nowadays are part of the GOP base, meaning that they will not cross over to vote for Democrats. They are solid GOP voters and therefore, do not need to be wooed like minority voters or moderates need to be. If you are going to deny the existence of racists within the Republican party, I'm afraid you are the ignorant one (or at least, you're in denial).

03-14-2006, 02:23 PM	#15 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	The majority of the power brokers of the GOP are not racists, not really anyway. Classists to be sure, but not racists. Of course being classist means that certain races do get the shaft because most people in the right class are white. But is that really racism? I don't think so, and painting it as such misses the point of the real dangers in the GOP's attitudes. There are some very racist GOPers however. Of course, there are some racist Dems too. However, it is the classism in the GOP that allows the racists to pretty strongly pursue their ends under the cover of the classist agenda of the party at large. Things like massive tax breaks for the richest elites coupled with declining access to vital services for the poorest Americans is of course going to be disproportionately beneficial to whites, and negative to blacks, just based on the simple statistical reality of demographics. So the majority of the GOP big wigs who only care about one color--Green--provide the real momentum for this agenda to line their own pockets, and the actual racists back them up because it cements the economic weakness of minorities. Thus I sympathise with folks like Host that see the racism inherent in GOP policies, I just don't think it means that Republicans can be assumed to be racist.

03-14-2006, 07:51 PM	#16 (permalink)
djtestudo Baltimoron Location: Beeeeeautiful Bel Air, MD	Sorry host, but it appears that only one of those articles has any remote bering on what I said, and that is only because it involves the state of Maryland. Even if you didn't want to talk about Michael Steele, it still also ignores the main point that you seem to be ignoring, that if you want to say one side is using blacks for their own purposes without bringing the other side into it as well then there is no sense discussing this further. __________________ "Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen." --Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun