Well, which is it?
I think it’s past time for there to be a changing of the guard in black leadership in America. People like Farrakhan, Sharpton and Jackson are no better than hustlers, bigots, and crooks. There are hundreds of black leaders who believe in improving the lives of black Americans, and America in general, but the media keeps giving time to the Axis of Irrelevancy.
Republicans think that because their candidate is black, he can wave magic pixie dust over Marylanders (Republicans think that black people are incapable of making up their minds for themselves and are compelled to vote based on skin color, how insulting) and hide the fact that Steele is just another right-wing Republican far out of touch with the values of Maryland and the future of our state.
So, if that leadership is Republican it’s not cool? Or do you not think that Steele believes in improving the lives of black Americans, and America in general? After all, that’s only something a Democrat can do, right?
And stating that an entire political party thinks that black people are incapable of making up their minds for themselves and are compelled to vote based on skin color is baseless rhetoric.
October 20th, 2005 at 5:26 pm
“And stating that an entire political party thinks that black people are incapable of making up their minds for themselves and are compelled to vote based on skin color is baseless rhetoric.”
That’s not baseless rhetoric, that’s the modern Democrat Party.
October 20th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
I was going to comment, but Captain Holly said it for me.
October 20th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
There may be some black Republicans who believe – really believe – in improving the lives of black Americans, but Michael Steele ain’t one of them. See, that wasn’t so hard.
October 20th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
But that’s not what you said.
October 21st, 2005 at 8:08 am
I’ve long thought that the Democrats were the party of racism. Look at Je$$e Jack$on, Tawana Sharpton, Calypso Louie, Sheets Byrd, William Fullbright, Al Gore Sr, etc, etc.
Remember, it was the Republicans who freed the slaves, the Republicans who backed and pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through, and who primarily want to give EVERY parent the right to choose the quality of education for his child. By and large, Republicans want everyone to fend for themselves, and will do what is required to provide the environment that encourages effort, achievement, and excellence, without stereo-typing. MLK would probably be saddened by the quotas, the focus on minority issues, etc. They tend to prevent people from judging by the content of one’s character.
The Democrats have run Louisiana and New Orleans for 40 years or more, and were running it when poor blacks were stranded for days without adequate resources. Democrats have done more to keep as many blacks poor and needy as possible. Democrats would rather keep the black community ignorant and dependent upon a government hand-out. In that way, they ensure votes.
Why won’t the Democrats get out of the way and let every minority have a seat at the adult table, rather than force them all to eat at the kiddy table.
“Eat your peas, they are good for you.”
“You can’t have cake until you eat all your vegetables.”
“Don’t bother getting your own food, because you’ll only spill it. I’ll get it for you.”
Democrats are a disgrace. I like the phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations”. It seems to sum up the Democrat approach to minorities.
Only a Democrat would say, “Republicans think that black people are incapable of making up their minds for themselves and are compelled to vote based on skin color.” Didn’t the Democrats scuttle Estrada because he wasn’t Hispanic enough? Didn’t a Democrat claim that any black who voted Republican was just a ‘house slave’?
October 21st, 2005 at 11:53 am
J.J.:
Frankly, after some intelligent debate elsewhere, I’m surprised at your shrillness of tone here.
It’s a lot more complicated than that. First of all, the Republican party of today is almost nothing like the Republican party of 1864 or even of 1964. Look at Nixon’s platform, for Chrissakes, dude actually advocated a living wage!
During the lead up to the civil rights movement, the “Dixiecrat” wing of the Democratic party split away from the main party over issues of segregation and insitutuional racism (both of which they supported), and guess who welcomed them with open arms? That’s right, the GOP.
Don’t get me wrong, both parties are plenty guilty of race-baiting. But it is the modern GOP that continues to exploit the Southern Strategy, and the GOP that is far more likely to tolerate — and even attempt to appeal to — racists.
You talk about the Republicans’ “every man for himself” philosophy as if it’s a good thing. Except that it has never worked, anywhere. On some level, community must be established, and people must work together for the common good if we are to survive as a society. You can argue about how that should take place, but to argue that it shouldn’t at all, or that we should just rely on individuals to do what’s right, is silly.
As for MLK, I’m pretty sure he was on record in support of quotas. (For the record, I do not support this.)
Your history of New Orleans is flawed at best, and totally ignorant at worst. Ray Nagin was a self-financed Republican who changed his party listing to Democrat at the last moment to get himself elected. And in any case, Louisiana Democrats are about as Democratic as California Republicans are Republican.
Estrada wasn’t scuttled because he “wasn’t hispanic enough,” he was scuttled because his stance on the issues sucked. And if we can hold what one Democrat claimed against the entire party, then I suppose we can hold Trent Lott or Pat Robertson against the entire GOP.
Off-topic, I’ve responded to you here, although comments are now closed. Rather than threadjack this, feel free to e-mail me, tgirsch(at)leanleft.com