Move along, nothing to see here. Democrats can always say racially insensitive things without retribution. It’s in the constitution I think.

Everyone that is except CBS 60 minutes. Not a word on this hot topic; instead the majority of the time was going after Palin for old news. Too funny. And CBS 60 minutes claims to be a “news” show. HAHAHA HOHOHO HEHEHE

they are acting like little kids, all excited to be using a *dirty word*. i guess Reid is fortunate he didn’t use the other n word.

no one is really addressing the point he made about obama using a dialect when he wanted to – as in – when he was in front of a certain audience, and he needed to sound…what? like he had street cred? so, basically, he noticed how obama would change to speak to certain people, like when he would whip out the southen babtist preacher voice. didn’t hillary recieve criticsm on the trail for sounding southern in certain cities?

i wrote elsewhere that given Reid’s age, it probably isn’t that big of a deal. the issue is the hypocrisy, and the attacks on Lott, and Imus – by Reid and Obama, and the Dems who didn’t let the issue die with Joe Wilson’s apology – so, by those standards, Reid must go. Besides, no one likes him anyway.

George’s comments on Sunday were pathetically weak – that Reid was speaking in private. Wasn’t it Reid who said, “If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

baptist, not babtist. oops

Sara: George went out of his Sunday show the way he came in: A democrat operative. This was evidenced by his remarks on Harry (speaking in private) without quoting Reid’s own words. Just makes George look kind of dumb and little. And since when is being interviewed for a book considered “private”? Poor George.

And I think Reid’s comments are a big deal, especially in light of all the disparaging and degrading things he said about Clarance Thomas (but then again, Thomas is “dark skinned” so I guess he didn’t meet Harry’s consideration of a black man worthy of promotion to the Supreme Court. Plus, I don’t think I have ever heard Thomas talk “with a negro dialect”.)

i agree that the intent and meaning behind the statment is an issue – especially the point that america was apparently too racist to elect a darker skinned man. his use of the word negro didn’t seem to be that terrible, in my opinion, because being an old dude, he grew up in that time when it was used….(it is a word that has never crossed my lips because i didn’t grow up in that time). Kind of like the census adding the word – there are people from that generation who use the word. And you are right about his other comments…there is a pattern, it seems.

And, like i said, turn about it fair play…

Well, the CBC has now blessed Harry’s comments as well, so the term “negro” is back in vogue (see 2010 census as prime example). I guess “talking black” will be the new buzz terminology since the CBC, Al Sharpton, et al have said…hey, if you support a black candidate you can support him/her with as many racial slurs as you desire. Talk about the CBC throwing MLK under the bus; jeesh..

PS: I saw your comment that you have decided to stick around here despite the aggression and crudeness of several posters (name calling, etc.). I’m glad to hear that.

:O) thanks! I stay because of people like you.

I’m going to be interested in reading the book. From the reviews, it appears that the authors are being a bit inconsistent and erratic. As for Reid, it’s Reid. If he weren’t bumbling something, he wouldn’t be speaking.

Comparisons between this and Trent Lott’s remarks are in no way comparable. One said something stupid, Trent Lott lent his support to the political party whose main focus was on racial segregation. There is no double standard, these two events are completely different.

You know this Sarah, we’ve been over this multiple times.

I appreciate your elaboration, Snipzor. I am new to this, and have no history with Sarah, but I suspected that was what was happening. Lott was one of the chief proponents of the Republican “Southern Strategy” which, at its very heart is latent racism and disenfranchisement. Lott let his latent racism get a bit too overt. It bit him, as it bit the Republicans in 2006 and 2008. Steele seems to realize the party has got to move away from the now failing Southern Strategy, but then he loses the racist to the bone (not the latent variety) Teabaggers. It is a conundrum which I find pleasant to observe.

The Trent Lott episode and Reid’s comments are not at all related. Lott was lending support to a colleague and the hyper-ventillating reactionaries had to gather numerous threads together to fabricate the racial overtones to what he had said. He MEANT he wanted Thurmon to win, So he MEANT he wanted to stifle civil rights, so he MEANT he was against all blacks, so he MEANT to be racist!

By that measure if Strom Thurman (recipient of Lott’s praise) is to be regarded as a dyed-in-the-wool racist why has he not himself been chased from Congress? And further why has Robert Byrd been allowed to formulate policy for the Democrats when he is a former Klansman who incorporated the rebel flag into his state’s own flag? We know why.

Diane Fienstein said yesterday that “I saw no Democrats jumping out there and condemning Senator Lott.” –except for herself:
– “This statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott’s ability to be a credible party leader,” she said in 2002, according to an Inland Valley Daily Bulletin news story.)
– and, “I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position,” Sen. Mary Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, said of Mr. Lott in 2002.
– oh, and also Sen. John Kerry also called on Mr. Lott to resign, saying “I simply do not believe the country can today afford to have someone who has made these statements again and again be the leader of the United States Senate,” according to a Boston Globe article.

Again, all of that based on making tenuous connections with Lott’s words. However a Democrat is permitted to judge an individual based on his skin color and whether he conforms to stereotypical behavior — the very definition of racism — and he can be applauded for “coming clean” and apologizing . . . over a year after he made the statements and was outed in a book.

2 Things:

First, as I stated yesterday, the word Negro was added back to 30,000 of the Census forms this time because in the last Census, 3% of older African Americans didn’t see the word Negro on the form so, they wrote it in. This is simply a generational thing. I wasn’t offended. And there’s truth to what Reid said.

Second:
I have some insights here but, instead of givning you my personal experiences as a lighter skinned African American, I’d suggest you read this article from the DailyBeast and pay close attention to what Collin Powell has to say as well. It’s enlightening, so to speak.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-01-10/harry-reid-was-right/?cid=hp:mainpromo2

I’ll let someone else answer for Byrd, except to say that, perhaps like Sessions he has found coddling the Klan a political necessity. That excuses nothing. It is shameful as to both of these men.

As for Thurman, two reasons he hasn’t been run out of the Senate: (1) The people in South Carolina, of course, kept electing him. Crackers seem to cling to Crackers in the Southern humidity. (2) Thurmond died in 2003, and the Graham Cracker took his place. It would be superfluous to run him out now.

Martini, Lott stepped down from Senate leadership, he wasn’t chased from Congress. Plus his statements weren’t up for debate, he had the voting record to show that what he said wasn’t a slip of the tongue or that the connections being made were exaggerations. Trent Lott resigned outright in 2007. He wasn’t chased from Congress. So that makes your entire point regarding Strom Thurmond useless.

Also regarding Senator Robert Byrd, time for a nice quote from the man himself.
“I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

Byrd also has the voting record to show that the comparison between him and Strom Thurmond is invalid. At least according to the NAACP. So I don’t necessarily know where you were going with by name dropping Robert Byrd.

May I ask what your point was?

Reid needs to go! Democrats need to stop defending him and put there effort into other things. This is a losing matter if the the left wants to be taken serious and stand on their own word.

Are the 3% of older African Americans who still call themselves Negro, racist against themselves? It’s pretty much like Archie Bunker who used the phrase “colored”. It spoke more to his character’s error and ignorance but, he would tell you that he was no racists. Which is probably why we got The Jeffersons. I know these are tv shows but, it’s a good analogy. As blacks, which is what we called ourselves after the Negro period, we hated the show Goodtimes because it depicted just one side of African American life in this country. The side that may have been all many whites knew about blacks in those days. Reid’s generation. Many of us were beginning to go to college and were trying to better ourselves and we kept getting the same old sterotypes. What Reid was basically saying is that, for those whites who may still cling to those sterotypes, Obama had more of a Cosby show feel, if you will.

By the way, it may stun some of you to know that Reid has gotten 94% of Obama’s legislation through. Something that stuns may of us Liberals and Progressives since we think he sucks. The diference is that while we’re hoping he loses, we don’t see Reid’s comments, which were basically retro, rise to the level of resignation material.

My point about Lott was not was not useless — look again at the quotes from Dem leaders I provided. and the larger point is exactly what you said: Byrd, and Reid, and their ilk have always been allowed to apologize for their tongue-slips and that is sufficient. When it is a conservative however their language is held up as an example of racism being woven into their DNA.

Look at the past election cycle where everything uttered in opposition to candidate Obama was tagged as color motivated — including one time when McCain mentioned he was a community orginizer and was then charged with inciting racism. This past year just about any opposition to the Obama administration on policy was dubbed as racially motivated. I even saw congressional hearing years ago where an independant investigator found Frank Raines – head of Fannie Mae – to be in severe violation of the law and his investigation was described as a lynching.

It shows that Dems do not treat the subject as a serious issue because when something as blatant as Reid’s comments can be excused away then all the other charges to follow prove they only use race as a political football.

Martini, perhaps it is best that you should have paid attention to what I said more carefully. Noted how I mentioned voting records. Trent Lott had a history of voting against bills that had to do with the protection of minorities (If I see the words special treatment in your next post, or anything similar, I will be disappointed). Robert Byrd and Harry Reid are not the same because when they apologize, it means something because their actual voting record suggests that what their said was irrelevant to the positions they held over the years.

That being said, I want Harry Reid to be replaced by someone who can command the Democratic Party with more skill.

Snipzor says:
January 11, 2010 at 10:38 am

Actually, what you said was that there IS a double standard, because Lott was a “Republican” and you associate Republicans with racial segregation. Don’t you see that? According to you, because Lott was/is a Republican, he gets treated differently… that IS the definition of a doubl standard!

The Real Royal King says:
January 11, 2010 at 10:48 am

Yes, especially because the most recent use of the “Southern Strategy” was by Clinton. Of course, your ignoring that is no surprise either.

The Real Royal King says:
January 11, 2010 at 11:30 am

I’ll let someone else answer for Byrd, except to say that, perhaps like Sessions he has found coddling the Klan a political necessity.

He was a member of the Klan long before he ran for congress in any capacity. Sorry, try again.

Crackers seem to cling to Crackers in the Southern humidity.

A racist term. Why are you so openly racist?

Snipzor says:
January 11, 2010 at 11:33 am

Yes, he was very sorry that being a member of the Klan hurt his chances to run for President. However, that’s still a DOUBLE STANDARD you’re pushing.

roxsteady says:
January 11, 2010 at 11:48 am

Are the 3% of older African Americans who still call themselves Negro, racist against themselves?

Hmm… so I guess that means we can start using the “N” word, because a lot of Black people call themselves that too? Nice “logic.”

I think the GOP should round up all the African Americans in their party and hold a press conference on camera! They’ll be lots of room on that stage for all of the African Americans in their party to express how pissed off they are and a dramatic photo op…….right? I’m assuming that many of you either didn’t read the dailybeast article or you did but, somehow missed another big time racists and his comments:

Quote,
When asked in 1995 why white people liked him so much, Colin Powell replied that “I speak reasonably well, like a white person,” and, visually, “I ain’t that black.”

Now, even the General made the same gaffe in suggesting that all blacks speak slang. But clearly his point was the same one Reid was making. It’s a misconception. And, again, I’m African American. I’m younger but, I do remember when the term Negro was what we were called. It wasn’t a slur. It was on various forms and applications. If I’m not offended, why should I be concerned with what Republicans think? They have their own adgenda.

And some people were ticked off at my suggestion that stupid people shoud be put down to protect the human race? They’re literally a waste of space. They don’t know anything and they don’t care to.

We conservatives and even oderates) will never be able to overcome the leftist “instant apology” “get out of trouble free” card. It’s just what they do, and you can’t fix it. Once you have become truly immersed in the “progressive” mantra, you know longer have the mental capability necessary to use common sense or fairness with anyone other than a fellow progressive. It’s rather “disease-like” in nature actually.

Pity isn’t it?

oops. should be “moderates” not “oderates”….

I’m NotBlue!

Hmm… so I guess that means we can start using the “N” word, because a lot of Black people call themselves that too? Nice “logic.”

If you choose to use that word, that’s on you though I’m sure it will be out of ear shot of anyone who is African American. That wasn’t my point. My point is that before African American, we were classified as blacks, and before that it was Negro. It may even be seen as racists to younger African Americans but, the oldsters are from that error like Dr. King who used the term, as well as other politicians of that era. You’re all entitled to your opinions but, you’re not entitled to spin the actual facts.

ImNotBlue

So Senator Robert Byrd is maintaining a facade of socially progressive beliefs for over 20 years why? Either he hadn’t thought his cunning plan through, or you haven’t thought anything through.

roxsteady wrote:

I have some insights here but, instead of givning you my personal experiences as a lighter skinned African American, I’d suggest you read this article from the DailyBeast and pay close attention to what Collin Powell (sic) has to say as well. It’s enlightening, so to speak.

Colin Powell, roxie? Is this the same Colin Powell of which you wrote this less than 24 hours before:

Colin Powell lost a lot of his luster when he gave that speech to the UN. He also got taken down a peg when he appeard on Rachel Maddow’s show. While she was very respectful as usual, she exposed him too.

You’re so right, Roxie. I would be “enlightened” by what Powell had to say, but darn the luck, Rachel neutralized him. His opinion means nothing — or so you told us. In the words of Carole King, “It’s too late baay-bee, now, it’s too late…”

What I find most interesting in all of your comments are the one’s about Collin Powell. Very enlightening!

This thread is not about voting records, it is about using racial terminology. Lott’s voting record is one thing, and that had to be answered to his constituents. The Lott comparison eminates from what he said in 2002, verbal support of Thurman. As I said earlier, if those words were so inciteful why no similar outrage at Thurman himself?

Maybe this would illustrate the double-standard better: in 2000 on the campaign trail George Bush was asked about the state flag of So.Carolina sporting the Stars-and-Bars. He answered that he was governor of another state entirely and the issue was one the voters in SC had to contend with. This caused a huge firestorm in the press regarding Bush’s insensitivity to racial issues because he did not call for the flag to be altered. Al Gore made a passing mention that he was outraged by the flag personally, yet no one called him on the fact that there were recognized holidays for the rebel flag in both his home state, and that of Bill Clinton. And as for the individual responsible for the flag change in SC in the first place — the reticent Robert Byrd — he had no comment, he made no move to influence the change, and the press felt no need to ask him about the controversey. Bush however, he was a blatant racist.

Again, Rachel took him down but, it was for his speech to the UN convincing us to go to war in Iraq to get those WMD”s. Again, I’m flattered that you save my posts but, as usual you’re changing the subject. Do you or do you not recognize that what Powell said is exactly what Reid was trying to say? Do you not see how they’re almost exactly the same in content?

Oh, and yes, I spelled his name correctly a few times. Thanks for the heads up. I’m a very fast typist and I don’t always spell check. Now, what did you think of his comments and how they relate to what Reid said. I do recall that many Republican supporters wanted Colin Powell to run.

I meant incorrectly!

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller? Until you garner the gnads to comment on the content, I remain convinced that you’re an ignorant teabagger who is simply looking for help in outsing Reid. Well you’re not going to get that from Negro, Black, or African Americans. Oh, and nice come back on my GOP press conference with all of it’s African American party members! It’s like I’m playing stump the intellectually dishonest teabaggers everytime I come on this site. No real logic. Just deflect and pivot, deflect and pivot!. Very clever.

Thurmond wasn’t a Senate leader, there was a ton of outrage directed towards him (Similar to Jesse Helms actually) regardless.

Regarding the rebel flag, Al Gore didn’t make the recognized holidays. He can’t necessarily do anything about it as well now can he? I was very young at the time so I didn’t actually notice any controversy, nor did I care. To make a judgement call on the controversy itself is pointless at this time. But did Robert Byrd have to make a comment? How should I know, my knowledge of the whole rebel flag business is underdeveloped. Although it is a red herring to begin with so I don’t know why I addressed it.

/Voting records are important by the way

The outrage at the term “negro” eminates not from the Republicans but from the left. This country has been lectured about the use of that term for decades now. The outrage at the census employing that term came from the left. Now when a leader from the left uses it we can excuse it away as a generational anomaly. Suddenly, in the matter of a few days, it is not such a horrific term. This is the kind of societal gymnastics that trivializes race relations.

The Colin Powell example is a non-starter to begin with, because of his skin color. He can say the same thing as Reid and it is not a problem. It is no different than African Americans using the “N-word”, whites may not. Then again, if Harry Reid says it, and he apologizes . . .

It is not a red herring, it is a shining example of the double-standard with race and the parties. The question was posed to Bush when he had Zero involvement with SC and their flag, yet they hung the racist charge on him as a result. Gore came out of the state of Tennessee and he may not have installed the holiday but he made no motion to eliminate it either, so his words on the issue were moot at best. And Senator Byrd had in fact been the one to change the flag and he suffered no criticism for it. Bush however could be smeared all the while.

Same thing is going on right now. The implication of racism is enough to attack Republicans, yet blatant racism can be explained away if it comes from the “correct” individuals.

I’m an African American who does not think it’s OK to use the N word! Again, don’t pretend to speak for me. Why do you suppose Dr. King, John Kennedy and countless others used that word back then? Was it used as a slur or as identification? The Powell example is exactly the same. It’s not a case of “he’s African American and so he can say it. It’s OK that he said it because that’s the way it is and was. It’s just an antiquated word. You would think that the NAACP would have changed their name by now but, they haven’t and no one seems to really care. It’s a well known brand name to them but, to many of us that’s even more offensive because it invokes memories of “colored only” water fountains and other signage that we saw from the 60′s. Maybe the African American people that some of you know think it’s OK or maybe it’s rappers who gave you that impression but, I’m telling you the N word is not accepted as anything but a slur. Just like that whole Nappy Headed Ho comment from Imus. There’s no way that could be considered a compliment.

OK, roxie, I read the Colin Powell quote in the Peter Beinart piece on Daily Beast. That statement was made in 1995, when he was spoken of as a possible POTUS candidate for either party (he was riding the fence even then). But Beinart doesn’t say to whom he said (as quoted by Beinart):

“I speak reasonably well, like a white person,” and, visually, “I ain’t that black.”

Did Powell say that for the public record and to whom? That quote would have come in handy during the leg-tingling days of BHO’s early campaign.

How is the comment racists? Do you not understand what I’m saying? And what the hell does the Confederate Flag have to do with Reid’s comments? This is why we Progressives and Liberals may seem smug to the right. Because when presented with the facts, you change the subject and resort to your false equivalencies. Just look at how the GOP tried to spin the underpants bomber. When they were confronted with and exact equivalency in the shoe bomber, they just ignored it, or tried to say that, Bush was wrong for prosecuting him in Federal Court while never having expressed that view back then when it might have counted. You’re straight up stupid for trying to use this non issue to outs Reid. Like I said, we hope he looses too but, we’re not hooking up with winguts and calling for resignations. Maybe you should contact Jane Hamshere. She’s now a wingnut too!

And as I pointed out, a few days ago “negro” was something to get people upset and offended. Then Reid’s quote came out and suddenly it is not such a big deal after all.

As for that implication that Obama can speak with a negro dialect when he wants to have one — I take that as racially offensive. Michael Steele is one black individual who feels that way.

Thanks for revealing what a well-thought and educated individual you are, yet again. When you cannot make a point you name-call. I’m “stupid” for trying to “outs” Reid. Brilliant.

Use your education to READ my posts on the Rebel flag – it illustrated how Dems were behind its existing yet Bush was tarred with it. Shining example of the old double-standard. I have no clue on Earth how the shoe/underwear bombers are involved with Harry Reid saying racially insensitive words, but in your world I’m sure it makes sense.

Is it possible the Reid worked so hard on Obama Care because of his ‘white guilt’?

The article didn’t say whether he was speaking to Beinart when he said it or a group of reporters. Perhaps you should click on the link at the end of the article. Or, we could wait for Powell to come out and deny it. The point is that even Powell is willing to acknowledge this. I was most facinated by the expeirment where they took a 3 photos of Obama. One, lighter skinned, one darker and one that was his actual skin tone and found that the Obama voters picked the lighter one as accurate while the McCain voters picked the darker one as accurate. Neither side got it right. Except for Harry Reid. Whether they want to admit it or can deal with it, the whites that voted for Obama, and a huge majority were white, perceive the President’s skin to be lighter. It doesn’t mean they’re racists. It’s simply their perception whether conciously or not. Reid was stating why he thought Obama could win. How could that be offensive to me?

roxsteady wrote:

Oh, and yes, I spelled his name correctly a few times. Thanks for the heads up. I’m a very fast typist and I don’t always spell check.

Uh … kinda defeats the purpose of typing fast, doesn’t it?

I’m still trying to figure out what you think I should call someone who is repeatedly presented with the facts yet, refuses to acknowlede it. You sound like the teabaggers screaming for the government to keep it’s hands off their Medicare when, in fact, Medicare is a government program. What would you call them and people like them who deny the truth when it’s staring them in the face? Genius? Oh, and the word is oust. I just refuse to spell check. I know that bothers you almost as much as my posts exposing many of you as idiots, morons and liars. Suffice it to say that it should come as no surprise that the GOP is just 20% of the voting population. That party has a lot in common with they word Negro. It’s time has passed too. We don’t have much use for either of them.

I can’t help typing fast. I’m just glad you can still manage to understand where I’m going, even if you can’t directly respond. But, I’m use to it now.

MartiniShark, are you for real?
–Thurmond (yes, that’s his name, not the TWO different ways you misspell it) died in 2003, so it was a little difficult to run him out of the Senate;
–Byrd renounced the Klan and has done so on many, many occasions, calling his membership in it a mistake. This is different from Thurmond, who was a proud segregationist (running on the openly segregationist Dixiecrat ticket for the Presidency in 1948, which was to spawn the Lott controversy decades later).
–Please provide evidence for your repeated claim that Byrd incorporated the Confederate flag into his state’s flag. As far as I can determine, the West Virginia state flag has been essentially unchanged since its accession to the union in 1863. And you state later on that Robert Byrd was from South Carolina, which is untrue. He has lived in West Virginia for most of his life and represents it in the Senate. Thurmond was from South Carolina.

Perhaps you’d be taken more seriously if your assertions of facts jibed with reality in the slightest.

And, I address Reid’s comments in some detail in the comments to this thread. To put it simply, it’s not a surprise that Reid should handicap Obama’s presumed electoral appeal, and I don’t disagree with his analysis that a lighter-skinned black man would probably do better at the polls than a darker-skinned one, and that Obama is adept in code-switching between AAVE and Standard English. However, Reid did an absolutely terrible job of phrasing his comment, which gives wingnuts their outrage du jour and saves them from talking about things like healthcare and national security.

“I’m still trying to figure out what you think I should call someone who is repeatedly presented with the facts yet, refuses to acknowlede it. ” … how about ROXSTEADY?

I think, INB, you need to read up on the “Southern Strategy,” then comment. Clinton had only limited success in the South, and to the extent he did, it was building on a coalition of well-educated, intellectual and affluent Whites and African Americans, working class and poor African Americans and Hispanics. This is far, far different than the Southern Strategy begun by Nixon, perfected under Reagan, exploited by Bush I (particularly under Attwater) and finally dealt a fatal blow under Bush II. The Southern Strategy built upon discontent by Middle Class, Upper Middle Class and Lower Up Class Whites over school desegregation. These people left the urban schools in huge numbers and formed “academies” throughout the mid South, lower South and Southwest. These academies became tools of Republicans OVERTLY appealing to the OVERT racism of the members of this group. Bush I’s loss to Clinton was largely the result of this group’s lack of motivation to go to the polls, inspired in part by Buchanan’s xenophobic Aryanism which paradoxically held even Blacks not to be full Americans. Bush I was largely repulsed by the group on social terms, and he paid the consequence. The short revival of the Southern Strategy under Bush II ended on a pragmatic basis. Exclusion of African Americans and Hispanics is electoral death now.

Of course, the resistance to the Republican party’s newly found and starkly relative “inclusiveness” led to the birth of the Teabaggers. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans handle this. The Democratic coalition, cantankerous to its very core, has a certain prophylactic quality to it, while the Republicans tend to be anything but flexible. In essence, we may be heading to a functional three party system. The Republican party is not going to die, despite the best efforts of the Teabaggers. Republican survival depends on the rejection of Teabaggerism. Can there be a coalition? I think not. Ron Reagan, the enlightened commentator not the former president, said of Christian fundamentalists/Southern Republicans, they can never be satisfied. They always want more. More of what? Crippling political and social orthodoxy. So, we will have a hobbled Republican party, able only to limp about until, at long last, Teabaggerism dies its well-justified political death. So, the Democrats ought to rejoice? Certainly, their job is easier. However, with a Teabagger-hobbled Republican party, their governance is made ineffective.

When was it that Bobby Byrd used the N word on national television? I believe it was in 2001 on Fox News Sunday. The ex-KKK member, leader in the democrat party, when on national television and used the “N” word and never apologized for it. The real face of the democrat party.

when=went

Perhaps, TfT, some day, in the very, very distant future, when the Republicans can count amongst their members a few, even very few African Americans who are more than tokens, you can get by with your ridiculous statement. For now, the very lily whiteness of Republicansim makes your statement seem a bit Thorton Wilderesque.

“I apologize for the characterization I used on this program… The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today’s society… In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have offended people.”
-Robert Byrd

TfT you are either a terrible liar or an incredible idiot. Not only did he apologize for it, but it was an actual apology instead of the wishy washy non-apologies that apologize that people were offended.

*apologizes that people were offended as opposed to apologizing for the actual offense. That’s what happens when you don’t reread your sentences properly. Either way, TfT is intellectually dishonest.

You are correct Snipzor — I missed his apology. Therefore I recant my statement and apologize for the characterization I used in claiming that Byrd did not apologize. In my attempt to point out the complete double standard of liberals claiming racism when a republican makes a comment and then excusing racism when a liberal does same I may have offended you and others.

TfT: I think your point that there is a virtual assumption that Republicans are racist is true. That naturally leads to people casting their statements, misstatements and silence in ways which seem unduly accusatory. There is another virtual assumption. Democrats are not racist. Therefore, they receive an exculpatory cloak. I don’t think either assumption is completely true. Yet, you can surely understand how recent history has converted these assumptions into irrevocable truisms, can’t you? In the end, the Republicans did make their own very fowl beds.

roxsteady says:
January 11, 2010 at 12:26 pm

So your point, and correct me if I’m wrong (because it’s pretty tough to figure out what you’re talking about half the time), is that because Reid is “old,” it’s okay that he uses outmoded terms that are offensive? That’s the rational? Really? I wonder… did you apply the same standard to George Allen? He grew up using that word… and yet, he was skewered for not knowing it was a racist term. But to you, it wasn’t a big deal because he was “older?” Is that right?

As for using the “N” word… no, I won’t be using it any time soon. However, YOU said:

Are the 3% of older African Americans who still call themselves Negro, racist against themselves?

This suggest that you think because Black people use the word/term, it’s okay for everyone else to… when “everyone else” is a Democrat. So my question, an application of the same standard to another word/term, is valid. You have no answer for it… because you’re “theory” is incredibly stupid.

And just for the record… what “facts” was I spinning, again?

Snipzor says:
January 11, 2010 at 12:27 pm

Byrd was very sorry… however, he wasn’t always “sorry,” and has had some “less-than-Liberal” moments throughout his career…

In 1964 he filibustered the civil rights act (with other Democrats), and opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Byrd opposed both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas’ appointment to the Supreme Court. In 1993 he fought against gays in the military, and in 1996 he supported limiting gay marriage, and opposes affirmative action.

But anyway, that’s all background stuff on Byrd. The fact is, despite all that, and despite the fact that he was pretty high up in the Klan for a while… all has been forgiven, and he’s a Democratic hero. Why is all that stuff overlooked? Well… because he’s got a “D” after his name, so it’s no problem.

But that type of double standard doesn’t fly in the national election… and that’s why Byrd could never move beyond left-wing hero status. So, I’m sure he’s sorry… sorry that his original opinions and actions, while overlooked by “his side,” were enough to keep him out of the White House for ever.

roxsteady says:
January 11, 2010 at 12:39 pm

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

You know that your posts are time stamped, right? We can see that while you pretend to be upset that nobody has responded to your ramblings, it’s only been 4 minutes. You know that, right?

roxsteady says:
January 11, 2010 at 12:49 pm

I’m an African American who does not think it’s OK to use the N word! Again, don’t pretend to speak for me.

Don’t have to speak for you… as I demonstrated above, you already SAID it was okay. It certainly meets your criteria… other Black people use the word to describe themselves, and it’s a “old” term, so some older people probably used it in their youth… just like Reid probably used “Negro.”

The Real Royal King says:
January 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm

I think, INB, you need to read up on the “Southern Strategy,” then comment.

*Sigh* From Wiki:

Following Barack Obama’s victory in the South Carolina primary on January 26, analysts on CNN described statements made by former President Bill Clinton on behalf of Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign as part of Senator Clinton’s “Southern strategy”. They noted former President Clinton’s comparison of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988.[28] In his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama pointed out that Clinton was referring to history more than 20 years old and contended that his campaign and win were different.

First, don’t ever use Wiki as a source. It makes you look as if you don’t know what you’re talking about. Secondly, Clinton, of course, had a Southern Strategy, as has every candidate since the Civil War. I spoke of the Republican’s Southern Strategy in very specific terms. Because, I use “Stategy,” the contents are the same? So, Haig, Petain and von Falkehhayn had the same Verdun Strategy in 1917 because it was called “Verdun Strategy”? Wouldn’t that have made the Great War even sillier? More to the point, in 1992, Clinton’s Southern Strategy was the same as Bush I? To run overtly racist ads and seize upon the NASCAR dads’ vote? I hardly think so. I seriously doubt you are that puerile. Let’s try to have an informed discussion.

I think the Republican version, under George W. Bush at least, was the “Southern Strategery.”

@ Vidiot

You are correct, mea culpa. I was in fact confused on Byrd and the State. It was Ernest Hollings, another Democrat who placed the confederagte flag. My mistake, and I apologize for using such a poor choice of words.

I forgot about Hollings and that incident, Martini. Seems to be he had riled up some Nixon Democrats, and this was to placate matters. Interesting how, in my lifetime, the parties seem to have flipped on race issues and also family planning issues. Do you remember how Bush I was referred to as “Rubbers” when he was a Congressman from Houston because of his fervent support for Planned Parenthood? Thanks for the memories.

I did not realize that about Bush 1, and if true that’s hilarious. But what weres the racist ads?