Reply
Mon 30 Dec, 2002 10:12 am
(then read this, from columnist William Rivers Pitt:)
=============================================
"....I give you Exhibit A, an email I received after my last article. In it, I wrote:
I want 55% of Americans to vote in the 2004 Presidential election. 55% is not such a big goal; only 50% voted in 2000, and something like 39% voted in the 2002 midterms.
This fellow responded thus:
When 33% of the citizenship of the United States are low life, not give a ****, uncaring and uneducated, stinking, diseased personality, un-patriotic, ego-driven, let a murderer go free cause he's one of them, dick-grabbing, profane the title "Mother", with every breath, masters of the bluff and masters of the proposition, low-rider-boom box-bass tube, illiterate, plaster their inferiority complex graffiti on every available wall or sign, you owe us a living whitey, sick culture, don't know enough to read a ballot, they don't deserve to be involved in any part of the election process.
Before this administration is through with the upcoming citizenship rules and regulations, the left is going to realize the elimination of this bull-**** voting block has in reality raised the 50% & 39% vote total to 83% and 72% respectively.
Then you're going to realize what a small minority you're really in.
============================================
You wouldn't believe how many racism-laden emails like this I get. I chose this one as an exemplar of the breed.
Oh...and God bless America. These fellows sure don't."
Diddie:
One also need only look at WHERE the bulk of the GOP's strength is.
Of course, since the Democrats have gotten further and further away from thier base, which includes ethnic minorities, the writer of the e-mail may be correct.
Correct in what respect, NeoGuin? Do you suggest that the author of that bit of electronic swill has correctly described Americans of African descent? Just curious as to what you find "correct" in that bit of sewage . . .
So what makes you think that this idiot is somwhow representative of "conservatives"? If it wasn't for the use of "the left is going to realize.." in the quote I would have guessed the ranter is just another idiot complaining about Bush's failure to secure our borders.
Using one idiots rant as "proof" of a mindset of roughly half the people in this country is a bit off. Are racist quotes attributed to Jessie Jackson, Malcom X, Hillary Clinton or Chuck Schumer equeal proof of racist mindset amongst liberals?
No time to respond just now - Big can of worms, PDiddie; it's going to get interesting on this one.
I don't think that racism is necessarily part of the conservative mind set, but careful cultivation of certain traditional attitudes in parts of the south has played a role in the GOP's ascendancy since Nixon's time. This has been in the news quite a lot in recent weeks, thanks to Sen. Lott's gaffe.
A case in point: The GOP candidate won the race for governor in Georgia, scoring points off his rival on the state flag issue. Now that he's won, he's consigning the controversy to the back burner. Racism? Who knows, but a clever strategy, for sure.
(That's just me, edgar, stirring the pot a bit...Canned worms? And fishin' is first in to defend? Surely that's only a coincidence... :wink: )
It's not just one idiot's rant, fish, as Mr. Pitt points out.
And come on now; this "they did it, too!" gambit hasn't ever worked.
What do you think the Republicans will do to heal the scabs scratched open by Trent Lott's unfortunate Freudian slip?
Something? If so, what?
Or nothing, as I suspect?
Setanta wrote:Correct in what respect, NeoGuin? Do you suggest that the author of that bit of electronic swill has correctly described Americans of African descent? Just curious as to what you find "correct" in that bit of sewage . . .
Not his DESCRIPTION, but the idea that the "Majority" that he speaks of (The Southern Paleocon) may continue to grow as the Democrats continue to ignore their key blocs.
One need only look at the relative silence of the Democrats on Lotts comments. What would have happened 40 years ago had such a comment been made, or even 20?
PDiddie wrote:(That's just me, edgar, stirring the pot a bit...Canned worms? And fishin' is first in to defend? Surely that's only a coincidence... :wink: )
It's not just one idiot's rant, fish, as Mr. Pitt points out.
And come on now; this "they did it, too!" gambit hasn't ever worked.
And it wasn't just one that I gave either. I could list a few thousand more. Would that make a difference?
But, my comment regarding Schumer, Clinton, etc.. isn't a "gambit" by any means. It does however illustrate the fallacy for your (and Pitt's) argument. Or is it your contention that they're racism is "good racism" while racism displayed by others is "bad racism"?
Racism is racism and no one political ideology has a lock on it. There's plenty to go around.
Quote:What do you think the Republicans will do to heal the scabs scratched open by Trent Lott's unfortunate Freudian slip?
Something? If so, what?
Or nothing, as I suspect?
What they do about it is their business. I'm not a republican so it isn't my concern. They can all choke on Lott as far as I'm concerned.
Lott could take this opportunity to forge into new territory in eradicating any racism in the GOP and in any other political factions but not just to repair his own image. If it's even hinted that he is insincere in the effort, he'd be exposed again.
Agreed, wiz.
The Republicans have had a golden egg laid at their feet.
If they were to truly work at issues that are favored by minority voters they could conceivably extinguish the Democratic Party in no time at all.
IMO they'll only be good for lip service.
NeoGuin wrote:One need only look at the relative silence of the Democrats on Lotts comments. What would have happened 40 years ago had such a comment been made, or even 20?
A very good point--it does seem that the Dems have turned into a pack of political
castratos. It would be nice to see some of them display a bit of intestinal fortitude.
Maybe that silence on the part of the democrats was the way to go. As it was, the republicans did try to raise the issue about Byrd. And silence about Lott only seemed to emphasize the situation. It became a republican issue, and helped focus the problems the republicans have with it. To think, not too long ago these very same southern republicans were the dixiecrats, who then were democrats.
But what happened with Lott helped bring some other factors into view, too. It showed that all the country was not all zeroed in on a war with Iraq. That there are other, important problems facing this country that have to be dealt with. And it may not have been the smartest solution to replace one southern republican with another, who shares similar outlooks.
I thought that it was intriguing that Rep. John Lewis(D-Ga.), a man whose head was bashed in by white supremacists in the '60s, was one of the first Dems to issue a public acceptance of Trent Lott's apology. I thought at that point Trent might skate through it.
Of course, I again underestimated the influence of Karl Rove.
I did not think Lewis' letter was a political manuever, but I accept that others might have seen it that way, especially when James Carville quickly lined up behind him.
Majority Leader-Elect Frist has the opportunity to show magnanimous leadership with some minority-focused legislation in the new session.
He'll have to sharpen his pencil. :wink:
Where's the column printed? Do you have a cite? I'd like to see the entire column (the citation, please, not the reprinted column), as it appears this is an excerpt.
Many thanks.
If you think racism isn't part of the Conservative mindset,
If you think racism isn't part of the human mindset, you'd be wrong.
Racism sweeps across all races, nationalities, political parties...where there are people there are degrees of racism.
I don't think there can be any question that Lott's remarks revealed an old mindset that doesn't belong in a party trying to show black Americans another way. And you see how quickly and efficiently he was dealt with.
As a party, we disagree that the best way to eradicate discrimination is alot of race-based programs. True equality means the same laws for all. Under the same laws, we all recieve the same rights and privileges.
Bush is preparing programs to benefit the needy based on need, not skin color.
There are increasing numbers of black Americans who prefer equal treatment, and take offense to "special programs", designed to continue their seperateness based on the color of their skin.
BTW, the black caucus is none to happy about Pelosi's move to appoint a white crony to a position of power instead of a black member. The party that claims to be pro-black, and assumes black votes are in their back pocket, doesn't seem to elevate blacks as the GOP does.
It is obvious the GOP is trying to win over black voters, but they can't do that simply by appointing some blacks to positions of influence; they would have to change their philosophy also and that ain't going to happen. The basic thrust of Republican policies is to keep the money flowing upward. Nowhere is there parity for the poor, black or white.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace