Republicans and Civil Rights
December 15, 2002 6:51 PM   Subscribe

Republicans and Civil Rights A somewhat opinionated but generally fact- and history-based (which is why I found it unusual enough to post) look at the place of the Republican party in the history of American civil rights.
posted by oissubke (61 comments total)

 
Never forget that Bill Clinton went to Moscow during the Vietnam War and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Never forget his unabashed hatred of the military, which was reflected in his remarks as an anti-war protester. The people who voted for him forgave him, twice

Aid and comfort? Clinton protested; it's not like he fired AK47s at US G.I.s. Clinton expressing his point of view in a peaceful manor for peace = Lott’s remarks? I think this just from 0 - toll in about 4.5 sec.

Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted.

I had to stop myself from laughing out load when I read this.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed

um, the "dixi-cracts" of thirties are not same democrats as today. Today most of them, despite what this article leads you to believe, "dixi-creacts" are Republicans (see Trent Lott's dixi-cracts origins. ref. this article)

This article is factual. I can't deny that it took a lot of different people to further the Civil Rights movement, but tone of article is accusatory and its thesis is misguided.
posted by Bag Man at 7:08 PM on December 15, 2002


Why is it that every defense of Lott I've read includes the phrase "Lott's many things, but he' not a racist." This is always presented as fact, as though there is a body of evidence that suggests he is in fact not a racist, and you are just a moron to think so.

Could someone point me to that body of evidence?
posted by danisaacs at 7:21 PM on December 15, 2002


This is but a limited view of what actually transpired. To understand how the Democrats are responsible for the Civil Rights Act, one must understand how the southern Democrats and conservative Republicans blocked such legislation for nearly 100 years in the Senate.

There was always a majority that favored civil rights legislation, just not enough to invoke cloture in the Senate and block the filibuster of the southern Democrats and their Republican allies.

The pressure for change came from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The best explanation I've seen of the process is in part three of Robert Caro's autobiography of LBJ, Master of the Senate. Republicans were important to the process but not the driving force.
posted by mygoditsbob at 7:29 PM on December 15, 2002


"um, the "dixi-cracts" of thirties are not same democrats as today. Today most of them, despite what this article leads you to believe, "dixi-creacts" are Republicans"

I figure most Dixiecrats of the thirties are dead today, not Republicans. :)
posted by RobbieFal at 8:05 PM on December 15, 2002


The linked editorial is a complete hoot; the name Barry Goldwater is nowhere to be found. That's our first clue that we've landed in a heavy spin zone. It was only two months after Everett Dirksen's stirring speech that ended the filibuster over the 1964 Civil Rights Act that the Republican Party chose freaking *Goldwater* as its presidential nominee against Johnson. Goldwater had voted against ending the filibuster and then against the Act.

Some champion of civil rights the Republicans were in 1964, eh?

Goldwater had also denounced the agreement between Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller to strengthen the civil rights plank of the party platform during the 1960 campaign as "immoral" and a "surrender" by Nixon to "the leader of the Republican left." It was the Goldwater/Reagan wing of the party, not folks like Dirksen, who would later come to dominate Republican politics. Hello, Mr. Trent Lott.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold.

Yeah, like Jesse Helms. *snort* This is what you call "fact- and history-based," oissubke? The Republican party in the South was *created* out of ex-Dems; it hardly disappeared after the 60s. For the record, Helms switched parties in 1971; if he or any of the others who bolted over black equality ever looked back, they sure did a great job of keeping it a secret.

And while Dirksen's contributions to the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act are worthy of praise, it's also true that he spoke out repeatedly (on constitutional grounds), against the idea of equality in "public accomodations" like lunch counters and other businesses - a central element of the eventual U.S. civil rights law.

Newsmax. What a crap site.
posted by mediareport at 8:37 PM on December 15, 2002


"Perhaps it is the rural nature of the state. Perhaps it is that rural blacks do not make a profession of holding grudges against whites who made statements or did things in their youth that they have come to regret."

In their youth? Trent made his blatantl racist comments last week, Trent said the essentially the same thing in 1980. That doesn't sound like taking anything he did in his youth out of context. He believes the same racist ideas he held back then....but as Jon Stewart said, he just didn't mean to say it out loud.

Sorry, oiss. But this article was more than somewhat opinionated. I hoped it would be evenhanded....all it did was piss me off.
posted by lazaruslong at 8:41 PM on December 15, 2002


Oh yeah, toss this link in there somewhere, too.
posted by mediareport at 8:43 PM on December 15, 2002


I was underwhelmed when I first saw this article linked from Fark earlier. When I saw it posted here I went back and read it more closely -- and was even more underwhelmed. It's a mix of fact and spin.
posted by pmurray63 at 8:50 PM on December 15, 2002


Dude but I don't see any facts. Course it may have helped if I could get past the gay slur "limp wristed" to actually read to the point where something even closely resembling a fact was thrown in. Oissubke if you see facts in this screed perhaps I have some trig functions to sell you. I'll let you take the patents and everything for very little up front money. Course you'll get it in the keister in the end. But what's a little limp wristed joviality among friends?
posted by filchyboy at 8:58 PM on December 15, 2002


Yaaaawwwnnn... More NewsMax crap.
posted by EmoChild at 9:18 PM on December 15, 2002


Nothing gave more "aid and comfort to the enemy" during the Cold War than the mass amount of propaganda mileage that the Soviet Bloc gained from showing off America's segregationist ways and showcasing the politicians who endorsed segregation.

Thank you, mediareport, for mentioning Barry Goldwater's conspicuous absence from the article. Notice that the article also completely skipped that part where JFK called MLK, Jr. while he was in jail during the '60 campaign. Did Nixon call MLK, Jr. in jail? Of course not, at the time MLK, Jr. and the grass-roots civil rights movement in the south was being unfairly linked with communist agitators by the Republicans like J. Edgar Hoover. Nor is any mention made of Nixon's '68 "southern strategy" and Strom Thurmond's link to advising Nixon to pursue such a move.

Finally, the Civil Rights Act of '64 was entirely the result of LBJ's arm twisting-- something that, frankly, only a southern Democrat could have done.
posted by deanc at 9:29 PM on December 15, 2002


I prefer David Greenberg's analysis in Slate. Better written, and Goldwater is included.
posted by mstillwell at 9:43 PM on December 15, 2002


Yeesh, don't we have rules against posting Newsmax articles?
posted by dhoyt at 9:48 PM on December 15, 2002


somewhat opinionated but generally fact- and history-based

[Nelson Muntz] Ha Ha [/Nelson Muntz]
posted by y2karl at 12:58 AM on December 16, 2002


Anything with TWO ads featuring Charlton Heston hawking crap tends to trip the 'ol BS sensor. If this was only somewhat opinionated, I'd hate to see what oissubke (pronounced, roughly, "Wuh-SOOK") considers highly opinionated.
posted by CoolHandPuke at 4:32 AM on December 16, 2002


No Newsmax. No UPI. No Washington Times. No Indymedia. No CommonDreams. No YellowTimes. Thank you.
posted by four panels at 6:18 AM on December 16, 2002


Apologies for the NewsMax link. My fault for not researching the site enough (wasn't very familiar with it).
posted by oissubke at 7:46 AM on December 16, 2002


Just because an editorial tosses out a few historical facts you weren't previously aware of doesn't make it "fact-based." Newsmax mostly serves as an outlet for AM talk radio hosts to get the latest incomplete, misleading, ultra-conservative spin on a story. I *guarantee* you that the op-ed you linked to will be a topic of discussion for my local little Limbaugh this afternoon.
posted by mediareport at 8:33 AM on December 16, 2002


I am a bit disheartened that this forum once again exhibits a left-leaning bias to the extreme. Before I begin, please note that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, but a conservative. My voting record does not necessarily follow party lines, but I vote and support candidates who most closely represent the ideals my familiy and I believe in.

I do appreciate the comments and discourse above that, while in disagreement, argues against the Newsmax article in an insightful manner. On many of them, I respectfully agree to disagree, but I can at least appreciate the logic behind the arguments. The simplistic idea of "It's from Newsmax (or any other journal or media outlet I disagree with) so it must be trash" simply is myopic and ill-founded IMHO.

Furthermore, I live in the South - Alabama to be exact. I am politically aware and also keep track of politics in my home state of Misissippi and former residence in Tennessee. In all three, I am well versed in politics and feel that the majority of the Newsmax article was pretty much dead on.

Let me give one example of a related political problem here in Alabama, where there is a serious problem with undocumented votor fraud. In this state, there is no requirement to show a photo ID or votor registration card when you vote - you simply state who you are and the name is crossed off the voting list for that precinct. This leads to obvius opportunities for fraud when the turnout is low. Many groups, primarily minorities, travel to many precincts late in the afternoon and look for names of voters who have not yet shown up, voting in their place - and then travel on to the next precinct. In some counties, there have been estimated that 5-20% of all votes cast in major elections are fraudulent.

This would be easy to fix - simply require a photo ID, votor registration, or other document to verify that you are actually a resident living within that precinct. A driver's license, a tax document, - heck, even a utility bill or common piece of mail should be sufficient. However, the Democrats know that this will cost them tons of rural and predominantly Democratic votes. Every time reform is mentioned, the rhetoric starts slinging about how the "Republicans are trying to abolish the Voting Rights Act", which is of course, foolishness.

Finally, I have always found Metafilter to be a great place to come and get comments and ideas that I simply did not see anywhere else. I am discouraged by the fact that many conservatives are not made welcome here. At the time I wrote this reply, there were 18 comments to the original post - not one of them conservative in nature. Maybe the previous article truly was not balanced, but neither was the followup comments. I would hope that fellow conservatives aren't just as discouraged as I am, and that there would be more posts from that side of the aisle.
posted by insulglass at 9:36 AM on December 16, 2002


Many groups, primarily minorities, travel to many precincts late in the afternoon and look for names of voters who have not yet shown up, voting in their place - and then travel on to the next precinct. In some counties, there have been estimated that 5-20% of all votes cast in major elections are fraudulent.

Could you please document this? No wonder the minorities keep coming out on top in every damn election. Crafty minorities!
posted by Skot at 9:47 AM on December 16, 2002


A rebuttal to any of the specific points raised by those objecting would help your case immensely, insulglass. "Respectfully agreeing to disagree" without stating any reason for disagreement quickly begins to look like holding onto your beliefs regardless of the facts.

The article's multiple distortions have been laid out above. Why do you not find the complete absence of Goldwater - one of the Senate's most vehement opponents of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican choice for President in 1964 - troubling? What evidence do you have to support the utterly ridiculous idea that most of the Dixiecrats returned to the Democratic fold? If leaders like Helms, Lott (he switched parties in '72, I just learned) and Thurmond remained Republican - and in power - for decades, why on earth are we supposed to believe, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, that the rank and file majority magically became Democrats again? The author offers *zero* evidence to back the claim.

Crap spin on the left *and* right gets called out here, and sites that routinely distort facts to push an agenda (hello, Newsmax, hello YellowTimes) are obvious and don't deserve a second thought. Being gentle with sites that post obvious mis/disinformation isn't my thing, sorry.
posted by mediareport at 10:01 AM on December 16, 2002


insulglass, maybe this would be more your speed:
www.freerepublic.com
They don't let those pesky liberals post there.
posted by 2sheets at 10:30 AM on December 16, 2002


Finally, I have always found Metafilter to be a great place to come and get comments and ideas that I simply did not see anywhere else. I am discouraged by the fact that many conservatives are not made welcome here.

I've generally felt very welcome here. The majority of MeFiers disagree with my beliefs, but I don't recall them ever trying to get rid of me. There's plenty of friendly and sometimes not-so-friendly debate, but don't confuse debate with personal hostility. There's plenty of room for both libs and cons here.
posted by oissubke at 11:53 AM on December 16, 2002


Could you please document this? No wonder the minorities keep coming out on top in every damn election. Crafty minorities! ...Skot

Here are some relevant links, some regarding voter identification in Alabama.

One
Two
Three
Four
Five

Can I show you a hundred newpaper articles that list names and addreses of people involved in this fraud? I cannot. However, I don't need to wade through the smoke to step into the fire. I DO know several individuals who have witnessed the type of fraudulent activities I mentioned above and I trust their word. And Skot, while I am white myself, my favorite colors are green and black. I could care less whether or not the minorities are the one committing the voter fraud, I only care that it be sensibly addressed as other states have done. This is merely an example of the larger issue I was commenting on, the lack of acceptance in general for conservatives at Metafilter.

And Mediareport, I will apologize in advance for the mixing of logic and passion. I cannot comment on Goldwater - I did not witness these events firsthand (born in 1966) and have not SPECIFICALLY researched political background on Goldwater and his motivations of the period. I will say that the Republicans in my geographic area of the current day - many of whom I have personally met - have a far greater heart, compassion, and desire of future succes for minorities than many of their Democratic counterparts and political adversaries. Once again, this is an observation of local politics and may not apply on what you percieve to be the national scene. Once again, my main point was the inclusion of conservative viewpoint on Metafilter.

And 2Sheets, you have helped to make my point. Should I infer that you feel I am a pesky conservative and that I ought to go spend my time at FreeRepublic instead of Metafilter? That's what it looks like to me.

I hope no one has misunderstood what I intended from my post - I'm not trying to suppress the liberal viewpoint, but would challenge that more conservatives would speak up and engage in the appropriate topics.
posted by insulglass at 11:58 AM on December 16, 2002


insulglass: my favorite colors are green and black

Really? My favorite color is blue. What does this have to do with your argument?


Your first link is about the opinion of Americans as determined by a "scientific survey" and how apparently a lot of people believe that Democrats are most responsible for voter fraud. I can't help but notice that there are no actual sources cited in this article that explore actual voter fraud numbers. There's a big difference between people believing that there is corruption and corruption actually being present. How does this relate to voter fraud?

Your second link is an article about absentee voters, and doesn't actually address voter fraud. In fact, at the end, it talks about how absentee ballot requests are higher in some places because the residents either have a long commute, making getting to a polling place difficult, or because there is just higher awareness in that area that absentee ballots are available. How does this relate to voter fraud?

Your third link is about how its supposedly too easy to get registered to vote. Also doesn't address voter fraud in a factual way, but does make some insinuations that people in black-majority areas are getting double counted. I don't know about you, but when I went to get a new drivers license (and, later, when I got a new library card) I was asked if I would like to get registered to vote. I'm thinking that high voter registration is not a bad idea, and that high percentages in certain areas could just as easily be a result of a high percentage of residents having drivers' licenses, library cards, etc.

Your fourth link is about how the NAACP is trying to preserve the voting rights of convicts. This isn't a bad idea, especially when so many people in the US are convicted of felonies (which, in many states, results in the taking away of voting rights) every year. Maybe people shouldn't be allowed to vote if they are currently incarcerated, but why not let them vote after they've done their time? And yes, this article does also not address voter fraud. I'm starting to see a pattern here.

Your fifth link simply talks about the adoption of voter id requirements, and also doesn't address actual issues of voter fraud except to say that voter fraud is harder when you require id's. To which I say "Duh".

So can you actually provide any links that give even vague numbers about the actual rate of voter fraud? After all, claiming that 5-20% of voters are fraudulent is what some might call outlandish.
posted by bshort at 3:11 PM on December 16, 2002


Insuglass, feel free to contribute your viewpoint on Metafilter. You should know, however, that if you write things like, "Many groups, primarily minorities, travel to many precincts late in the afternoon and look for names of voters who have not yet shown up, voting in their place - and then travel on to the next precinct," you will be called a racist. By whom? By me.

Yours was not a conservative viewpoint; yours was not the voice of common sense, bold and fearless of a PC backlash. It was an statement alleging that minorities are committing a particular sort of widespread fraud, and it was wholly unsupported by fact. Those kinds of statements are racist. As racist as if you had said, "Blacks men like to rape white women," or "Chinese people cannot be trusted with money," or "All whites want to see the death and destruction of blacks."

As for your five "relevant links," the first is a public research poll conducted by a conservative online publication; we don't know what questions were asked of the respondents, but whatever they were, the poll supports no fact other than certain number of people answered a question a certain way. Having 50 or 100 or 1 million people give their opinion about a statement doesn't make the statement true. Your second link is to a story that doesn't mention race. Nor does your third story, which is merely an editorial from the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal, which is noted for its conservative opinion, calling for the need for the reform of voter registration procedures. Your fourth story is about the NAACP getting prisoners to exercise the constitutional right to vote. Not only is this sanctioned by the United States Constitution, but I find it difficult to believe that locked up prisoners "travel to many precincts late in the afternoon." I think late in the afternoon, most prisoners are in the exercise yard lifting weights. The only reason I can think of you having linked to that article is that it involves a civil rights group (which means, to you, black people) getting prisoners (which to you, again, means black people) to exercise their legal right to vote.

But since I can't read minds, you can tell me I'm wrong on this last point.

Lastly, your fifth article is nothing more than a rewrite of a press release issued by a politician trying to get attention for the political issue of voter fraud. (An issue, by the way, which many Democrats consider to be an attempt by Republicans to suppress voter turnout by blacks, who typically vote Democratic.) Neither the article nor the politician mentioned race.

If you expect your sources to be respected on Metafilter, try to do a little better.

As for your ideas, let me remind you what you wrote: "Can I show you a hundred newpaper articles that list names and addreses of people involved in this fraud? I cannot. However, I don't need to wade through the smoke to step into the fire." That sort of thinking lends itself to racism. You've made a defamatory statement about members of a racial group, you realize you have no facts or logic to back up your statement, so you retreat to the folksy syllogism of the bigot: "I don't need to wade through the smoke to step into the fire." Translated, that means "I don't need facts to support my preconceived notions."

I analyzed your five articles because I want you to understand that Metafilter thrives on differences of opinion. But when you make claim widespread voter fraud, and then lay that at the feet of blacks, without any proof, that is racism of the worst sort -- a racism that stinks all the more because those in power have for too longused lies and culumnies -- ones much like you asserted earlier -- about the issue of the black man and the ballot box to fit their cruel, unconstitutional, immoral, unchristian and racist ends.
posted by hhc5 at 3:13 PM on December 16, 2002


bshort, you beat me to it. I guess I should refresh my page before posting. But I don't think your useful analysis dims my other points.
posted by hhc5 at 3:14 PM on December 16, 2002


hhc5: No no. Not at all. Your post is well written and insightful, and your points are well put.
posted by bshort at 3:20 PM on December 16, 2002


Interesting article, oissubke, and definitely discussion-worthy, judging by the circling of wagons above.

Is Newsmax any more partisan than the Guardian, the NYT or the Village Voice? Because those three are MetaFilter staples posted almost daily.

Thanks.
posted by hama7 at 3:29 PM on December 16, 2002


Guardian articles that contain obvious bullshit get called out hard and fast here, hama7. Will you ever tire of the "I'm a conservative victim, pity me" stuff?
posted by mediareport at 3:33 PM on December 16, 2002


Will you ever tire of the "I'm a conservative victim, pity me" stuff?

Actually, I get bored reading partisan leftoid nonsense every five minutes and indignant hellfire and damnation from lefties every time a conservative idea rears it's head.
posted by hama7 at 3:59 PM on December 16, 2002


hama7: so what counts as "leftoid"? Any thing that questions your worldview?

When the conservative ideas that raise their heads are blatantly racist, I think you can be assured that they will be vehemently denounced.
posted by bshort at 4:26 PM on December 16, 2002


And, besides, the argument that people are putting forth is not whether the Village Voice or the New York Times are "left", but rather, whether Newsmax is a reputable source for news.
posted by bshort at 4:34 PM on December 16, 2002


Case in point. Take a good look at today's front page and answer me this:

Is it more interesting than it was in September 1999 (or many similar archives)?

posted by hama7 at 5:13 PM on December 16, 2002


Hama7: I'm not really sure what your point is. Could you explain?

Are you saying that MetaFilter is better/worse/appallingly the same as it was 1/2/3 years ago? Well, maybe. But its also changed a lot, and a lot more people post a lot more things than they did when the membership was <1000 people.

Are you saying that the content of the posts have changed? Well, maybe, but the crowd that's here now is different than the crowd in the past. If it offends you so, then you could always start your own site. It looks like Hamafilter is open. You could always start your own metafilter clone and try to recreate the good ol' days.
posted by bshort at 5:27 PM on December 16, 2002


You could always start your own metafilter clone and try to recreate the good ol' days.

No thanks; way too much trouble, but I salute those who have the wherewithal to do so.

My point is that the sheer number of news posts is overwhelming, as has been mentioned many times recently. Has this always been the case? I don't think so, but I am open to suggestions. It doesn't 'offend' me per se, and I think if more people's intentions were to post "something special and interesting ("unusual") they'd found on the web", we'd be in paradise.

Is the Drudge Report a reputable source for news? I'm not sure that any source for news is indisputably 'reputable', but rather depends on your viewpoint. The Weekly World News is reputable for somebody, I guess.
posted by hama7 at 6:27 PM on December 16, 2002


Whenever I have a headache or a bad day, I'm going to come back and read this post and imagine the sensation of being surrounded by 72 black-eyed virgins cooling me with ostrich-feather fans, pouring my bourbon and feeding me grapes .

Golly, #3, news posts are awful... sometimes.
posted by y2karl at 6:58 PM on December 16, 2002


Leave me alone!
posted by hama7 at 7:01 PM on December 16, 2002


Poor poor hama7. I was hoping that you actually had a point with all your ranting, but everytime someone tries to engage you, you just switch to making a different point.

Also, reputation is not decided by an individual, but is decided by the general public (or by whatever subgroup you happen to be talking about). So, I would argue, the New York Times is reputable. The National Enquirer is not. If you happen to confine your sample to just National Enquirer readers than you may get a different answer, but then it would just be pointed out that you're not really talking about a representative sample.
posted by bshort at 7:23 PM on December 16, 2002


I was hoping that you actually had a point with all your ranting,

You asked me what my point was. I explained. I did not switch anything, but mentioned that news, (particularly partisan news posts) makes for partisan bickering in many cases, and topical, throwaway FPPs, rather than interesting links that one refers to again again.

the New York Times is reputable.

Yes it is, if you're a socialist, or a card-carrying member of the communist party. It's all a matter of opinion.
posted by hama7 at 8:02 PM on December 16, 2002


Did you ever get the feeling that your socks were made of baloney, and a yipping little bulldog was constantly nipping at your heels?

No? Lucky you!
posted by hama7 at 8:05 PM on December 16, 2002


"I did not switch anything, but mentioned that news, (particularly partisan news posts) makes for partisan bickering in many cases, and topical, throwaway FPPs, rather than interesting links that one refers to again again."

And see, here I thought you were saying that its ok to post from a partisan source simply because you happen to see a certain source as "left". Were you not saying that? If not, then obviously my bad.

And here I thought you were saying that you hated seeing what you perceived as "partisan leftoid nonsense" being spewed whenever "a conservative idea rears it's head". Once again, my bad. I must have somehow misread your post. Or something.

"Yes it is, if you're a socialist, or a card-carrying member of the communist party. It's all a matter of opinion."

Um, yeah. Right. Communist. I'm going to assume you're kidding here. Because, you know, you must be. And, you know, its not just communists that carry cards.

So what paper do you read, dear hama7? What paper or news source meets your elite standards?
posted by bshort at 8:45 PM on December 16, 2002


And, btw, I don't think its your socks that are made of baloney...
posted by bshort at 8:46 PM on December 16, 2002


bshort: Really? My favorite color is blue. What does this have to do with your argument?
Color of money. I'm an evil capitalist, as well ! :-)

hhc5:But when you make claim widespread voter fraud, and then lay that at the feet of blacks, without any proof, that is racism of the worst sort -- a racism that stinks all the more because those in power have for too longused lies and culumnies -- ones much like you asserted earlier -- about the issue of the black man and the ballot box to fit their cruel, unconstitutional, immoral, unchristian and racist ends.
Well, it depends on how YOU define widespread. I was personally referring to a few counties in Alabama which are historically and commonly held in viewpoint within our state to be problematic with regards to voter fraud. The point I was trying to make was that the Democratic officials that hold power within this region maintain this system because it serves their end and they deflect conservative attempts to make sensible change. I don't think it has anything to do with being cruel or unChristian, and it is racist in tone only because of analysis and circumstance. Immoral is debatable depending on who is doing the defining; and I feel that the process by which I described is most certainly unconstitutional according to the laws of this state.

However, you have once again missed the point and did not catch my implication: the voter fraud and the reaction by the local Democratic power brokers is symbolic and demonstrative of the reaction. The MAIN point of my discourse is that I feel that Metafilter is more intolerant of conservative viewpoint by reactionary commentary than the liberal viewpoint. And frankly, anyone here is welcome to fault my logic and hammer me back to the Stone Ages if I deserve it. But it's going to take a lot of convincing to combat my personal opinion that Metafilter is clearly biased in general against conservative posts and commentary.

Quick question - having read my comments above, how many other MiFi'ers would feel I am racist? I would be interested in quick snap opinions.
posted by insulglass at 10:07 PM on December 16, 2002


Yes it is, if you're a socialist, or a card-carrying member of the communist party. It's all a matter of opinion.

are you a real person? that is to say, are you or are you not an invented persona?
posted by mcsweetie at 11:06 PM on December 16, 2002


And see, here I thought you were saying that its ok to post from a partisan source simply because you happen to see a certain source as "left". Were you not saying that? If not, then obviously my bad.

Your bad, then. But now I'm confused, you see. Are you saying that I said that it was ok to post a Newsmax thread because Newsmax is 'left', because that's what it sounds you're saying I said, but I didn't, did I?

And here I thought you were saying that you hated seeing what you perceived as "partisan leftoid nonsense" being spewed whenever "a conservative idea rears it's head".

Now you're saying I said I 'hated' something, which I did not say, and you're saying that I said that partisan leftoid nonsense is spewed whenever a conservative idea rears its head which is not exactly what I said, but rather that partisan leftoid threads are quite common, and conservative themes are met with something like acrimonious vituperation, which I'm not sure you're saying I said, but I am actually saying, even if you're not saying I said it.

I'm going to assume you're kidding here.

Please don't assume that. There are really no secrets about the NYT's leanings.

So what paper do you read, dear hama7?

Well sir, I'm glad you asked. For Korean news, I am partial to the Chosun Ilbo. The WSJ is good too, among several others, and you may not be surprised to learn that I think Town Hall is tops for most Op-Ed pieces. (although confidentially, I usually just skip to Ann Coulter, first)
posted by hama7 at 11:33 PM on December 16, 2002


are you a real person?

That depends on who's asking; are you?
posted by hama7 at 11:38 PM on December 16, 2002


Sorry I wasn't clear Hama. I'll say it again:

You said: Is Newsmax any more partisan than the Guardian, the NYT or the Village Voice? Because those three are MetaFilter staples posted almost daily.
In other words, you're claiming that because people post links from what you see as a paper that "socialist, card-carrying Communists" read, that that somehow reflects on the credibility of Newsmax as a source of news?

Please don't assume that. There are really no secrets about the NYT's leanings.
That they're somehow socialist and communist? Please. When you make wierd little claims like this it makes you look like a sad sad little troll.

The WSJ is good too, among several others...
So you read the Wall Street Journal? In what way are you trying to claim that the overall viewpoint of the Journal differs significantly from the Times?
posted by bshort at 11:52 PM on December 16, 2002


that that somehow reflects on the credibility of Newsmax as a source of news?

I'm not so sure Newsmax is even at issue here, come to think of it.

The article was simply carried by Newsmax, but was written by Diane Alden, who is also carried by, or writes for several other publications such as:keepandbeararms.com, american-partisan.com, sierratimes.com, paragonpowerhouse.com, dadi.org, among seemingly countless others, accessible by a cursory search.

So, this really has little to nothing to do with Newsmax as a source, because it wasn't.
posted by hama7 at 12:23 AM on December 17, 2002


Believe it or not, we were actually talking about Newsmax as a source. Repeatedly.

You can now try to shift the argument to whether Dianne Alden is a good or fair writer, but I think everyone has pretty much left the room.

You're a troll. A pitiful little troll. I think SweetJesus said it best: "If you don't want to be painted as an idiotic, pathetic, dismissive, vitriolic troll who is looking to get into ideological arguments with liberals, and has nothing interesting to say, then don't act like it."
posted by bshort at 2:08 AM on December 17, 2002


we were actually talking about Newsmax as a source. Repeatedly.

Well we were wasting our time, or at least I was, because as you can see Newsmax is not really the issue at all. Sure, the original intention was to attack the messenger (Newsmax) and accuse it of 'disreputability', as is commonplace. But as I recall, your initial complaint was "racism". Odd.

And I'll take a pass on the salvo/ tantrum return. Have a nice day.
posted by hama7 at 5:10 AM on December 17, 2002


Ditto.

(boy, THAT was ironic, wasn't it?)
posted by insulglass at 7:21 AM on December 17, 2002


Too bad the modern Republican party strayed so badly from its early ideals.

Blacks know GOP strays from 'party of Lincoln' claim

By Roland S. Martin

The reactions of Republican politicians and their mouthpieces to Sen. Trent Lott's pro-segregation remarks have been revealing. They can't defend this top party leader, so they rush to make all the usual talking points about Republicans in general: The GOP is the party of Abraham Lincoln; more Republicans supported civil-rights legislation in the 1960s than Democrats; the GOP cares most about issues paramount to African-Americans, such as school choice. Lott himself tried to harp on school choice as a compelling reason to keep him in his leadership post during his appearance Monday on Black Entertainment Television.

The rhetoric sounds wonderful, but it is disingenuous to paint the Republican Party as amenable to African-Americans when the evidence is stacked against it.

Today's GOP is not the same one led by Lincoln, so trying to link the two is a waste of time. True, Republicans backed civil-rights legislation while some Democrats were blocking school doorways. But when the Democratic Party began to embrace the civil-rights movement, segregationist Democrats found a new political niche: the GOP, which at the time was undergoing a conservative metamorphosis. Those angry, bigoted Democrats found the Republican Party a willing place to set up shop.

Conservative commentators have suggested that Democrats jumped on the Lott controversy because racial polarization will work to their political advantage. But the Democratic Party didn't devise the "Southern Strategy," a political plan established by GOP President Richard Nixon to pit African-Americans against white Southerners incensed at the federal government for upsetting the way business was done in the South. What did the strategy get the party of Lincoln? Nearly 30 years of overwhelming support by white voters — and virtually no love from African-Americans.


And how hypocritical (as usual) that those who routinely attack any front page post with which they disagree as "biased" would try to defend "Newsmax". Unbelievable...but absolutely par for the course for a certain crew here.

You're a troll. A pitiful little troll.

Name calling does nothing to further your argument. Let the positions of our "conservative" friends speak for them. Those positions speak volumes.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:16 PM on December 17, 2002


"One of the reasons we are Republicans is that we believe in our individual merits," said Watts, who is the only black Republican in Congress." - a short article.

From the excellent Issues & Views webpage:

While factions on both the left and right continue their assault on the founding principles of the Constitution, we stand firm for:

Freedom of Speech by opposing censorship and the overt and subtle bans on "politically incorrect" opinions;

Opposition to "Hate Crime" laws that are designed to protect subsets of citizens who are considered "more equal" than others;

Freedom of Association by supporting school choice and opposing forced busing and other unconstitutional coercions;

Property Rights by supporting the Second Amendment, opposing restrictive environmental regulations, and opposing "discrimination" lawsuits that have become tactics to plunder businesses for sums of money and other rewards.
posted by hama7 at 7:00 PM on December 17, 2002


RE: on the use of overt and subtle bans on the use of politically incorrect" opinions,

that is, racist code words

(to the appropriate segregationist audience...)

--tell it to Colin Powell, buddy...
posted by y2karl at 1:11 AM on December 19, 2002


that is, racist code words

No, actually it's bullshit bans on free speech.

And even racist speech is protected last time I checked; just ask Belafonte, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, et cetera.
posted by hama7 at 4:37 AM on December 19, 2002


Yep, Karl, everything those Republicans say is just dirty racist "code". Kind of like how the New York Times, and, presumably, the Democratic power elite, use their own crypto-Communist code speak, huh?

You two should just hug really tight; you're not all that different, you know?

I just love it how we all agree on how very low the bar should be set; that way, when the right day comes (oh, and it will), the Republicans are guaranteed to pull the same petty shit. But I guess challenging this cycle might have to involve a, possibly vulnerable, act of political dignity. Heaven knows we can't experiment with that.

Now continue your Campaign of Racial Justice. Oh, and don't forget Dick Cheney's persisting flirtation with hatred. Don't ever let-up. These dangerous closeted Confederates must be forced from power.
posted by dgaicun at 5:11 AM on December 19, 2002


And even racist speech is protected last time I checked...

Well, for one thing, we're not talking about Belafonte, Sharpton, Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, etc. We're talking about Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader.

No one is saying that Lott or Thurmond or anyone else doesn't have the right to say whatever they want. Spouting racist drivel is every American's right. What people are objecting to is the spouting of racist drivel by someone that is the Senate majority leader. Leaders are usually picked because they share common views and goals with the majority of the electorate (whether the group electing is the general public or the majority party in the legistlature).

So far as I know no one is objecting to Lott's comments from a legal basis, but rather a moral one. The idea that someone who didn't just have a slip of the tongue in a lightheared moment, but seems to have a history of racist views, and who has been quoted as saying racist things in the past, is in a position of power has really resonated with the public, and seems to have sparked outrage. At this point the honorable thing for Lott to do is to resign at least his post, if not his seat, so as to prevent further damage to his party.
posted by bshort at 12:03 PM on December 19, 2002


There was nothing about the 1948 election or the Dixiecrat agenda that should have been acceptable in any way to any American at that time or any American now.

Colin Powell

Yep, Karl, everything those Republicans say is just dirty racist "code".
Nice try but I never said or implied that. I referred to a deliberate political strategy.

Here's some paragraphs from Earl Ofari Hutchinson to explain what I mean:

Their respectable, gray flannel suit opposition to civil rights, in contrast to Lott’s crude, bellicose opposition is the big reason the Republicans have resuscitated the party from its century of near extinction in the Deep South to become the dominant force in national politics. The transformation came in 1964. Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater rode the first tide of white backlash. He opposed the 1964 civil rights bill, railed against big government, and championed states rights. Despite his landslide loss to Lyndon Johnson, Goldwater deeply planted the seed of racial pandering that would be the centerpiece of the Republican’s “Southern Strategy” in the coming decades.

In 1968, Richard Nixon picked the hot button issues of bussing and quotas, adopted the policy of benign neglect, and subtly stoked white racial fears. He routinely peppered his talks with his confidants with derogatory quips about blacks. He enshrined in popular language racially-tinged code words such as, "law and order," permissive society" "welfare cheats," "crime in the streets," "subculture of violence," "subculture of poverty," "culturally deprived" and "lack of family values."

Ronald Reagan picked up the racial torch by launching the first major systematic attack on affirmative action programs, and gutting many social and education programs. He refused to meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, attempted to reduce the power of the Civil Rights Commission over employment discrimination cases, and opposed the extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Reagan's attorney general Ed Meese complained that the bill discriminated against the South.

In 1988, Bush, Sr., made escaped black convict Willie Horton the poster boy for black crime and violence and turned the presidential campaign against his Democrat opponent Michael Dukakis into a rout. He branded a bill by Senator Ted Kennedy to make it easier to bring employment discrimination suits a “quotas bill” and vetoed it. He further infuriated blacks by appointing arch-conservative Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. In his autobiography, "My American Journey," Colin Powell called Reagan “insensitive” on racial issues, and tagged Bush’s Horton stunt, “a cheap shot.”


Are you arguing, dgaicun and hama7, that the Southern Strategy he outlines there is a lie and fiction? That's what I was talking about when I said code words--a deliberate pitch to southern white segregationists.

PS. Check out his website--he's hardly in the camp of your personal boogie man Al Sharpton.

Some more from Quinn Hillyer in the National Review:

Thoughtful conservatives here, as in the rest of the country, share a deep philosophical commitment to color-blindness under the law — combined with a Jack Kemp-like enthusiasm for market-based anti-poverty incentives that would be particularly beneficial to black Americans trapped in downtrodden neighborhoods.

While rejecting racial preferences under the law, we also realize that racism still exists and still is hurtful. In the past few years I've been with a black friend when white players plucked his golfball from a fairway for sheer spite and when our lunches weren't served until after the black friend gave up and left the premises; and I've been with white friends where other people not only used racial epithets with abandon but also referred to black neighborhoods while making monkey sounds.

Conservative defenders of Mr. Lott may have reason to react against "politically correct" tendencies to see racists behind every tree. But words such as Lott uttered, words that truly are racially divisive on their face, only feed those leftist tendencies to conflate benevolent conservative policy positions with the daily racism on golf courses and in restaurants that black Americans still experience.


Interesting that he mentions Jack Kemp--in the NPR segment yesterday, Kemp said the Republican party would never attract black voters until it came to terms with its recent past and abandoned the race baiting once and for all.

If overt racist speech is socially unacceptable, then one has to get the message across by other means. Merely noting that the time honored use of phrases like states rights, welfare cheats and subculture of violence, or not taking a stand on the use of the Confederate flag, or taking a trip to Bob Jones University at the most opportune time are signals to a certain segment of voters is hardly PC censorship. It's just noting the facts.

Crying censorship is something these guys have done very well and do note they have a videotape on that old devil Political Correctness to sell you.

I am not implying you are of a kind with them--the problem for the rest of us with this, however, is knowing sometimes whether a conservative is just a conservative. And this is another heritage of the Southern Strategy. You can't pin that one on me.
posted by y2karl at 1:43 PM on December 19, 2002


We're talking about Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader.

Keep your eye on the thread, which reads: "Rebublicans and Civil Rights".

Trent Lott should save his adopted party the nasty publicity he has created, and not let the door hit him on the way out. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat at the time he ran for president anyway. But we digress.

As for conservative "code": snore. Affirmative action is racist, and the quote;
"One of the reasons we are Republicans is that we believe in our individual merits," is one of the best reasons to become a Republican, if you aren't one already.
posted by hama7 at 8:57 PM on December 19, 2002


Here's a brilliant article by Larry Elder called A Lott of double standards.
posted by hama7 at 4:34 PM on December 22, 2002


« Older The neo-Confederacy movement...  |  Canadian American Relations... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments