1
   

The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.

 
 
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 08:13 pm
By BOB HERBERT
Published: September 25, 2007
I applaud the thousands of people, many of them poor, who traveled from around the country to protest in Jena, La., last week. But what I'd really like to see is a million angry protesters marching on the headquarters of the National Republican Party in Washington.

Enough is enough. Last week the Republicans showed once again just how anti-black their party really is.

The G.O.P. has spent the last 40 years insulting, disenfranchising and otherwise stomping on the interests of black Americans. Last week, the residents of Washington, D.C., with its majority black population, came remarkably close to realizing a goal they have sought for decades ?- a voting member of Congress to represent them.

A majority in Congress favored the move, and the House had already approved it. But the Republican minority in the Senate ?- with the enthusiastic support of President Bush ?- rose up on Tuesday and said: "No way, baby."

At least 57 senators favored the bill, a solid majority. But the Republicans prevented a key motion on the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to move it forward in the Senate. The bill died.

At the same time that the Republicans were killing Congressional representation for D.C. residents, the major G.O.P. candidates for president were offering a collective slap in the face to black voters nationally by refusing to participate in a long-scheduled, nationally televised debate focusing on issues important to minorities.

The radio and television personality Tavis Smiley worked for a year to have a pair of these debates televised on PBS, one for the Democratic candidates and the other for the Republicans. The Democratic debate was held in June, and all the major candidates participated.

The Republican debate is scheduled for Thursday. But Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have all told Mr. Smiley: "No way, baby."

They won't be there. They can't be bothered debating issues that might be of interest to black Americans. After all, they're Republicans.

This is the party of the Southern strategy ?- the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush ?- they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964.

Dr. Goodman, one of the most decent people I have ever known, carried the ache of that loss with her every day of her life.

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

"I believe in states' rights," said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ?'Nigger, nigger, nigger,' " said Atwater. "By 1968, you can't say ?'nigger' ?- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."

In 1991, the first President Bush poked a finger in the eye of black America by selecting the egregious Clarence Thomas for the seat on the Supreme Court that had been held by the revered Thurgood Marshall. The fact that there is a rigid quota on the court, permitting one black and one black only to serve at a time, is itself racist.

Mr. Bush seemed to be saying, "All right, you want your black on the court? Boy, have I got one for you."

Republicans improperly threw black voters off the rolls in Florida in the contested presidential election of 2000, and sent Florida state troopers into the homes of black voters to intimidate them in 2004.

Blacks have been remarkably quiet about this sustained mistreatment by the Republican Party, which says a great deal about the quality of black leadership in the U.S. It's time for that passive, masochistic posture to end.
link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,808 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 09:36 pm
there's an attractive side? Shocked
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:41 pm
i don't entirely disagree with bob's conclusion (i think bear put it well) but the idea that voting against a 51st state is inherently racist smells a bit fishy to me.

i'm all for a 51st state too, but not for blacks, for everyone that wants it. i do admit to entertaining the idea that it hurt the chances that it would be such a liberal state. racism is a more serious charge, however- just because the paty is *too often* guilty of it doesn't mean it's the basis for everything. also if you make that charge in petty, ridiculous ways, you rather cheapen it.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 06:46 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
i'm all for a 51st state too, but not for blacks, for everyone that wants it. i do admit to entertaining the idea that it hurt the chances that it would be such a liberal state. racism is a more serious charge, however- just because the paty is *too often* guilty of it doesn't mean it's the basis for everything. also if you make that charge in petty, ridiculous ways, you rather cheapen it.


The bill Herbert is referring to wasn't to make D.C. a state. The bill would have given D.C. congressional represetation wihout it being a state - hence the reason it was killed.

The Constitution provides that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." and "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

The position of those who opposed the bill is that the only way to have voting representation in the Congress is to be a state. The bill's supporters prefer an end-run around the Constitutional requirement instead of amending the Constitution itself (which was tried back in the 1980s and failed).

Herbert is a tooll of the DNC. In this piece (which, interestingly enough, is largely plagerized from a piece he wrote 2 years ago) he argues that the GOP is holding up legislation that is clearly unconstitutional yet in his Sept 22nd piece (3 days earlier) he argues against another GOP action because he supports the Dem. claim that it is unconstitutional. He doesn't care whether legislation is constitutional or not. His only concern is pushing the Democratic party agenda.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 07:45 am
well, there you go.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 08:34 am
Re: The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.
blueflame1 wrote:
This is the party of the Southern strategy ?- the party that ran, like panting dogs, after the votes of segregationist whites who were repelled by the very idea of giving equal treatment to blacks. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. (Willie Horton) Bush, George W. (Compassionate Conservative) Bush ?- they all ran with that lousy pack.

Dr. Carolyn Goodman, a woman I was privileged to call a friend, died last month at the age of 91. She was the mother of Andrew Goodman, one of the three young civil rights activists shot to death by rabid racists near Philadelphia, Miss., in 1964. [..]

In one of the vilest moves in modern presidential politics, Ronald Reagan, the ultimate hero of this latter-day Republican Party, went out of his way to kick off his general election campaign in 1980 in that very same Philadelphia, Miss. He was not there to send the message that he stood solidly for the values of Andrew Goodman. He was there to assure the bigots that he was with them.

"I believe in states' rights," said Mr. Reagan. The crowd roared.

In 1981, during the first year of Mr. Reagan's presidency, the late Lee Atwater gave an interview to a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University, explaining the evolution of the Southern strategy:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, ?'Nigger, nigger, nigger,' " said Atwater. "By 1968, you can't say ?'nigger' ?- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights, and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites."

Leaving aside the question of DC representation - as a foreigner I find it incomprehensible that these millions of people are withheld any representation in the country's parliamentary bodies, but as a foreigner I'll also leave Constitution-based debates to you this time - this is sure a good piece and a timely reminder.

Now that the Bush camp (of all people!) is trying to impose the negative stereotype of the "lazy" black on Obama (of all people!), this is as good a moment as any for one..
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:34 am
Most of the population of D.C.can vote in the state in which their legally registered. So representation is a false issue. More political games by politicians to garner votes from unthinking citizens.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 10:54 am
rabel22 wrote:
Most of the population of D.C.can vote in the state in which their legally registered. So representation is a false issue.

Can you explain a bit more about this to me?

I did just find out that, uhh, the Washington DC metro area has 8 million people, but the actual city (and District) only has about 500,000... oops, I was way off with my "millions" remark there then.

But of those 500,000, how many are legally registered in another state, does anybody know? Still seems so weird to just leave half a million people without any federal representation..
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:11 am
I have no idea what rabel is referring to. D.C. residents can register and vote within the District. The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution (passed in the early 1960s) awards them Electoral College delegates although it isn't calculated in the same manner as it is for the States.

The bill Herbert mentions (The DC House Voting Rights Act) had nothing to do with with the ability of individuals to vote. The bill would have awarded D.C. a voting seat in the House of Representatives (where they currently have a non-voting Rep. It would also have given Utah one additional seat - that was a part of the compromise legislation in hopes of getting it through the Congress.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:20 am
fishin wrote:
The bill Herbert mentions (The DC House Voting Rights Act) had nothing to do with with the ability of individuals to vote.

Eh. I understand that they can already vote for President, as well of course as for local government. But they can't vote in elections to the Senate. And they only have a pro-forma vote for the House of Representatives, where sure, they can vote now, but only for a sort of observer - the Representative they elect doesnt actually have the right to cast any vote. The bill would have at least addressed the latter thing. Right?
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:57 am
nimh wrote:

Eh. I understand that they can already vote for President, as well of course as for local government. But they can't vote in elections to the Senate. And they only have a pro-forma vote for the House of Representatives, where sure, they can vote now, but only for a sort of observer - the Representative they elect doesnt actually have the right to cast any vote. The bill would have at least addressed the latter thing. Right?


I think we both said the same thing using completely different words! Laughing

But yeah, they'd get a REAL Representative in the House that can cast real votes.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 12:03 pm
fishin wrote:
I think we both said the same thing using completely different words! Laughing

Right on Cool
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Ugly Side of the G.O.P.
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/28/2026 at 04:42:57