"If you think racism isn't part of the conservative mindset,

Hmmm... I'm surprised this hasn't been introduced...I will not link it as it has been on every news web site all week. If you wish to read more about it, find it yourself.

The highest ranking African-American in the California Republican Party on Tuesday condemned the racism he has endured working for the GOP.

"Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise," party Secretary Shannon Reeves wrote in an e-mail to party board members.

He said "the time has come" for Republican leaders to understand what he has had to endure.

"When I travel to speak at Republican conferences and events around the country, wandering through hotels, convention centers and social clubs, as I approach the rooms where I'm to speak, I am often told by Republicans that I must be in the wrong place," he wrote.

"As a Bush delegate at the 2000 convention in Philadelphia, I proudly wore my delegate's badge and (Republican National Committee) lapel pin as I worked the convention. Regardless of the fact that I was obviously a delegate prominently displaying my credentials, no less than six times did white delegates dismissively tell me (to) fetch them a taxi or carry their luggage."

=========================================

I remember reading an article a couple of years back about the role of blacks in the GOP. The party has several sub-committees set up to deal with various policy issues. This article quoted several black Republicans as saying that, when it came time to dole out assignments to these committees, they were invariably placed on those committees that had some black aspect to them (poverty, racism, low-income housing, crime, etc., etc.) But they were rarely placed on plum comittees dealing with foreign policy that also did not have any obvious black aspect to them (e.g., relations with African nations).

The people quoted said that they didn't feel this was being done out of any kind of outright racism but was more the result of an subconscious assumption that black members of the party would be more interested in dealing with black issues.

I wonder if this is still the case.

Trespassers Will:
I do believe you posted this on Page Thirteen ...

"
Can you point me to just one example you offered wherein John Ashcroft is shown to be attempting to destroy the rights of blacks, women, or gays specifically?
"

I'm giving you one, and I'm going to give them one at a time until you answer each and every one!!

WHAT ABOUT JOHN ASHCROFT'S CONTINUING ATTACK AGAINST WOMEN. THE SPECIFIC WOMENS RIGHT TO CHOICE. HIS CAREER LONG ATTACK ON ABORTION. THE ONE THAT THE RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS HAVE PLEDGED TO OVERTURN DURING BUSHES REIGN. A CONTINUING ATTACK AGAINST THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN.

As soon as you finish that one, I have another one. I think they have to be taken one at a time to keep you centered.

Anon Voter, ah, I mean, Anon

Hey Pdiddie:

I have recently received a spam e-mail from a guy named Ward Connerly from http://www.acri.org/ . Here is an excerpt from the e-mail!

"
Now is the time for President Bush -- and you -- to act. Call on the President to tell the Supreme Court his administration opposes the University of Michigan's policies. Sign the petition to President Bush and strike a blow that could help turn the tide of this long battle against affirmative action and move our nation toward a more color-blind society where equal justice under the law is once again the law of the land.

Let's swamp the White House in petitions before Jan. 16 and give President Bush the support he needs to influence the Supreme Court.
"

There Trespassers, I just gave you a free plug. Play nice now, be a good boy, and answer the questions!!

By the way, Trespassers thinks that the Right Wing Conservative Florida Illegal Disenfranchisement of thousands of black voters is off thread in a discrimination thread about how conservatives are generally biased. I wonder if those black voters would think it is off-thread. Maybe we should run a poll!!

Anon

Ashcroft has shown that he is a part of the religious bigotry I'm sure most of us have seen debated over and over in the past two years, mainly because of 9/11. Isn't this just as disturbing a mindset and how does anyone think it ties into racial bigotry? There are Afro-American Babtists Churches in the South -- it does mix things up when you get into whether they are anti-gay, for instance, or against abortion. So I'm not sure it's a good idea to mix abortion rights into whether the conservative mindset has racist agendas (far more important than if they still have racist feelings, which they may or may not been trying to overcome (sic).

The judges are going to get a lot of scrutiny and need 60 votes in the Senate to be confirmed. If the Democrats lay down once again because of Bush's popularity and the flawed perception that they'll be considered as not patriotic and confirm a judge despite strong indications that they are holding any racist's viewpoint, then fie on the Democrats. If any judges aren't confirmed, it will just work like it always has -- the administration will have to go back to the drawing boards and select less controversial candidates. No President has been given a free pass on all their appointments -- Clinton had just as much of a rough road.

Meanwhile, Ashcroft can perhaps take a trip around the country in a campaign to cover up the genitals of every reproduction of Michaelangelo's David.

Re: Trespassers Will:


I'm putting you on notice that I don't appreciate your tactics or your disrespectful attitude toward me. I'll deal with you only so long as you can treat me with the courtesy expected in these exchanges.



I understand that you consider anyone who is anti-abortion to be anti-woman. I do not. I understand that you consider an "attack on abortion" to be an "attack on women". I do not. In fact, I think that's a profoundly absurd point of view. By that standard a woman who is anti-abortion is anti-woman. It also assumes that anyone who takes any position considered to damage the current legal status of abortion is anti-woman.

After making some comments here regarding my opinions and position on abortion, I've decided my first instinct was correct, they don't belong in this discussion. Since you didn't, I will create a new discussion and throw them in the opening there. You are welcome to read them and let me know what you think.



I hope you'll understand if I retain the right to decide whether I want to play this game forever, and I would also encourage you to create new discussions for these tangential debates. :wink:

Anon and trespassers, please take it to PM.

From the Washington Post:

The White House and the Republican National Committee declined to comment yesterday on a racial controversy involving a Bush administration ally who is campaigning to become chairman of the California Republican Party.

Bill Back, the California party's vice chairman running for the top job, sent out an e-mail newsletter in 1999 that reproduced an essay that said "history might have taken a better turn" if the South had won the Civil War and that "the real damage to race relations in the South came not from slavery, but from Reconstruction, which would not have occurred if the South had won."

The Contra Costa Times reported on the e-mail article yesterday and quoted Shannon Reeves, the California GOP secretary and an African American, saying: "There's no room for bigotry in the Republican Party, and I don't think there's a lot of room in the Republican Party for people who distribute bigoted information. What's appalling is to have the vice chair of the Republican Party distribute this."

White House Silent on Racial Controversy

If anyone on these forums believes they recognize a syntax of someone from another forum, that's not a matter of debate on this forum. Let's address everyone as they are -- essentially anonymous -- and if you have a complaint that someone has used an inappropriate epithet or is indulging in a personal attack, there's a place to report that. It's right on the line now and other guides and/or moderators are, of course, auditing these discussions on a daily basis. I do agree that summarily discounting cited material as invalid is an evasive tactic. If one is too busy and doesn't have time or doesn't want to take the time to give oppositing cites which support another viewpoint or set of facts (their viewpoint, I assume), that's a concession to my thinking. The interent, unfortunately, is filled with materials that is subject to suspicion as to their factual validations, so also consider that these sites can be and should be invalidated if it's possible. Especially if it's a site that reports editorialized news, not necessarily verifyable news.

PDiddie - Is it possible that author's point in the article in question was that anything that served the promotion of states' rights--even if it delayed the inevitable demise of slavery--would have been a positive thing for all Americans?

Or is an outright support for slavery the only possible conclusion one can draw?

Let's pick this nit down to its molecules:

If you choose to accept the vice chairman of the California Republican Party as an advocate of "states' rights" (I would be fascinated in your definition of the phrase; especially if you can sufficiently 'whitewash' it) as a man with no racial bias in his defense of belief... well, then you go ahead on.

I, of course, cannot give him--or you, until you choose to make a case--the benefit of the doubt.

Trespassers Will:

Thanks for your notice, I can't tell you how much it means to me!! I'll use whatever tactics it takes to get a straight answer from you. It's very much like pulling teeth from an alligator!!

As to "not playing the game". Indeed it is you who is playing the game, you just don't like the shoe when it's on the other foot.

I appreciate your civiliity. Thanks sooo much! I know you think you answered my question, but I don't think so. I think you have have skirted around and danced around the questions with generalites. You have yet to respond to the the answer I have given to your original challange.

The right to bodily choices belongs to the woman, not to right wing conservative christians, or anyone else . We are not talking about anti-woman, that is your cute little phrase! If a woman is against abortion, she is against the RIGHT, THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT, of the woman to make her own choices. She is not "ANTI-WOMAN", your phrase!

I'm saying that the attack, GOD, will you ever really answer, against the RIGHT of the woman to bodily choices IS an attack personally championed by Ashcroft. This is exactly on-thread, exactly! I am answering YOUR challange. Please do me the courtesy of a direct answer. Do I need to bring your challange over again so you can center on it??

Right or wrong Trespassers, right or wrong, Ummnnn ????

Anon

Lightwizard:

I posted before I read your post. Out of my total respect for you, I will retract my previous post if it is over the line.

We were asked to give a specific example. I gave one. I expect a specific response. If that is expecting too much of Tresspasser to do, I will most certainly back off and consider silence as my answer.

Anon

So your standard is that conservatives are guilty of racism unless proven otherwise? Fair enough.

Uh, yup, that's pretty much a nice restatement of the topic.

I observe, again, that you have so far completely refused several requests for elaboration, clarification, justification, etc.

Please speak to the topic, and provide evidence to support your view that bigotry is NOT part of the conservative mindset.

Or move on to another thread.

A bad apple can spoil the whole Lott!

Actually, you'd have to find the bad apples. I have a feeling they are there but I have to agree that guilty until proven innocent isn't exactly in the spirit of our democracy. There are enough puffs of smoke to be very suspicious but I'm not sure whether or not one shouldn't be suspicious of all politicians. They speak out of both sides of their mouth. There is a small minority that you'll hear some straight talk but I am skeptical enough about the whole bunch to wonder if that isn't a facade. What do you think politicians have been talking about all these years? The majority of people don't trust the government. It doesn't help that politicians who tell us don't trust the government have forgotten one important thing. Yeah, but not including you -- right?

Anon -- don't ever edit any post unless you believe it should be edited. The guidelines might seem constricting but they are really suggestive and in the spirit of fairness. Anyone is free to believe it is overreacting to the anarchy on another site but I certainly don't think so. I'm sure one of Tony Soprano's employees will not show up at anyone's door who gets a little out of order. Well, unless you refer to someone's wife as overweight.


We should all take a minute, including myself, and decide if what we are posting isn't too impulsive.

I always like this:

If you don't have something nice to say about someone, don't say anything at all.

And, believe, me I keep my mouth shut about you!

LW

The Thumper Rule! I understand it is Michael Eisner's personal motto too.

Yet you can't seem to bring yourself to respond in like kind.


Agreed.


Is it?


I think you are splitting hairs. Am I really taking liberties by writing "anti-woman" where you wrote "attack on women"? Wouldn't an "attack on women" be "anti-woman" in your view?



Then by your own argument, Ashcroft has not attacked women, but has attacked the right to abortion. So, your example shows us not that Ashcroft is against women, but against abortion. This, of course, is not a point I contest. I readily acknowledge that Ashcroft is against abortion, and have concerns that he is against it for reasons other than those upon which he should be acting in his capacity as attorney general.

Now, as to where this finds us...

I concede that Ashcroft is anti-abortion.

I concede that he seems intent on limiting the currently recognized federal "right" to abortion.

I concede that this does in fact go to my challenge to "...point me to just one example you offered wherein John Ashcroft is shown to be attempting to destroy the rights of blacks, women, or gays specifically?"

I strayed a bit from my original point in the challenge, but your point did in fact go to answering that challenge. Fair enough.

..

Now, perhaps you might stop and wonder how much more quickly we might have reached this point if you had just addressed your question to me from the start in a reasonable, civil manner, rather than addressing a third party about what I was or was not answering to your satisfaction and who I might be, etc....

I realize, in looking back over the exchange, that I took your statements as written, and did a poor job of considering the context. I got caught up in your wording rather than considering the point you meant to make. Perhaps some of this was due to the way you worded your challenge, and perhaps your in-your-face presentation put me off my game a bit. I only mention this to point out that this discussion might have been more fruitful, and sooner, had I done a few things differently as well.

========

Lastly, what is served by claiming that most conservatives are racist, other than an attempt to preempt any conservative point of view in discussions of race?

I would genuinely appreciate an opportunity to discuss issues with you in a courteous, respectful manner, and I'm completely willing to let the past be the past. I hope that is acceptable to you.

I think he came up with that because of the dissention at studio production meetings (evidenced by all the shake-ups at Disney).

Just an aside, but Walter Strom who was once the head of production at MGM once described a meeting as a bunch of older white guys bickering over the money spent on the film and that halfway through the meeting, a doctor would show up with syringes filled with B12. They'd each lower their pants to get a shot while continuing the bickering.

On the political threads, we may need a shot of tranquilizers.

Nit-picking? More like picking at scabs. The question raised had to do with racism being part of the conservative mindset.

Of course, there are some conservatives whose thought processes are different from mainstream. But by and large, Watts seems to be the one who can offer one of the better observations, having been there, been that. And what he says is based upon his own experiences with the conservatives. And underlying what he says indicates a mind-set.

How else do you explain the speed with which Pickering was re-named? There aren't even lame excuses offered this time. Rather, it is explained that Pickering was hand-picked by Lott, and this is returning a favor to Lott. So, picking up on a thought that was uttered here, they didn't even think about it. No consideration at all was given to the niceities of it. In order to give something back to Lott (and prove the power of the presidency), Pickering gets named again.

Here again, intent is involved. It is intended to show that the conservatives will stick by their man and by their beliefs. And if their beliefs are questioned, the public be damned. So of course there is a mind-set. And apparently it is blasphemy even to qustion it.

Although there are many examples, and thousands of words, this re-naming of Pickering seems to be a clear example of a demonstration of the original topic heading.

Do I really need to go back and copy and paste all the comments I've made already? It seems you found them unpersuasive the first time, so what would be the point?

I am evidence that bigotry is not part of the conservative mindset, as are countless other conservatives. That you think otherwise is evidence of your own bigotry.