An interesting read.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Truth be told (IMHO), advocacy groups such as the NAACP (and others on both sides of the aisle) feel a need to do things that will perpetuate their own need for being. I think there's certainly a shred of truth in the report (as all such advocacy reports have), but it is certainly not the last, nor the authoritative, word on the subject.

Is there still racism in this country? Yes.
Is there more racism on the fringes of the political right that in other parts of our society? Maybe so (actually probably so).
Does this automatically discredit the rest of their message? No (the inconsistencies and rational disconnects do so, not that fact that a certain percentage of them may have racist/nativist tendencies). These tendencies exist everywhere in our society.

+1. Well said Finn.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Without respect to the source, the methods of the research behind that report are, at best, suspect. The researcher's results are based solely on her observations at Beck's rally. Recall that Beck had admonished those planning to attend to leave their signs at home. It was a carefully orchestrated media event. One cannot conduct a study of such an event and draw any valid conclusions about the tea party movement that has been operating for over a year now.

Regards,

D-Ray

Also true. But isn't that the usual modus operundi?
Anyone who actually read that NAACP report might have noticed that basic theme was as follows;
The NAACP denounced what it perceived as racism within the Tea Party movement. Tea Party leaders vehemently denied the existence of said racism, but then quietly began weeding overt racists from their organization and discouraging the use of apparently racist speech, picket signs and such.
In this report, the NAACP does give credit to the TP leadership for taking these actions, but states, predictably perhaps, that more must be done.

Isn't this what we all saw going on? Really. Think about it. This is how it unfolded, right? That's what I saw.
(And if racists among the Tea Partiers never existed in the first place, why would any of this have been necessary?)

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Sure, not all Tea Partiers are racist. Heck, it would appear that a small percentage of them are African American and Latino. Of course not all Republicans are racist either, it's just not true.

But, one small question seems to nag at me;

Why is it that, when someone who is overtly racist runs for public office, David Duke for example, they tend to pick the Republican Party? Well, since about 1964, anyhow. What could it be that draws them to the right? The Democratic party has had racists, true. A long time ago. "Dixiecrats", whom all but Robert Bird went across the aisle, what, about 40-45 years ago? Around 1964, perhaps?

This and the fact that I don't personally know any racist people who aren't Republicans. Not one. All of the bigots in my life seem to LOVE Fox News and EIB. Beck is my brothers hero, ferfuksake. And THAT says it all, IMHO.

Maybe there are black racists in the Democratic Party? I'm sure that's possible. Maybe even probable.

So, to boil it back down the simplest form;

Why do they always seem to gravitate right? What is it that draws them? There must be something going on with that.

Dave

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Why do they always seem to gravitate right? What is it that draws them?

Dave

Since the advent of Nixon's Southern Strategy, the GOP's "big tent" has deliberately courted and stoked white racial anger. Racists, like everyone else, go to where they feel welcome.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Since the advent of Nixon's Southern Strategy, the GOP's "big tent" has deliberately courted and stoked white racial anger. Racists, like everyone else, go to where they feel welcome.

Oh, my! Say it isn't so! The GOP manipulate people and their fears to get votes? Unthinkable!
How dare you, Sir! Next thing I know you'll accuse them of screaming "TERRORISTS!!!" every time they drop in the polls?

You're crazy.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Why is it that, when someone who is overtly racist runs for public office, David Duke for example, they tend to pick the Republican Party? Well, since about 1964, anyhow. What could it be that draws them to the right? The Democratic party has had racists, true. A long time ago. "Dixiecrats", whom all but Robert Bird went across the aisle, what, about 40-45 years ago? Around 1964, perhaps?

You just answered your own question. Racism is on both sides of the aisle. It did not migrate to the right. Its still there. It may be that Democrats find better ways to recycle themselves.

Andrew Cuomo - dropped out of the 2002 NY Governor's race after a racially charged remark about his opponent. He's running again as a Dem. It may run in the family. Several elections earlier, the slogan "Vote for Cuomo not the homo" was attributed to his dad's campaign.

Jesse Jackson - anti-Semitic comments.

Dick Gephardt was connected to a Missouri white supremacist group, Metro South Citizens Council. Of course, he's apologized, and said this was all a big mistake. But of course, if we can call the Tea Party racists without evidence, should we then use the same standard to deem Gephardt a racist?

Ernest Hollings is still a patriarch of the Democrat Party, and was quite fond of making anti - Semitic and anti - black remarks. I think he still pops up from time to time as a contributor to the Huffington Post.

Of course, who am I to argue with Al Sharpton, who said, in a presidential debate: Rev. Al Sharpton, said the Democrat take the black vote for granted and treat "They [Democrats} will take us to the dance, but they don't want to take us home to meet mama."

By the way, this is the same NAACP that chided President Clinton for sending 20, 000 troops to protect the white citizens of Europe's Bosnia, but sent no troops to Africa's Rwanda to protect the black citizens there. Consequently over 800,000 Africans were massacred. I mean, as long as we're playing the race card...

Your "David Duke" example is a rather poor on, IMHO. Everyone seems to forget that Duke started out in Louisiana as a Democrat. The party apparatus, given how the party writes the rules, was more successful in keeping him off the ticket. He went to the "Populist" party, then found a way onto the ticket as a Republican in a state where the Republicans, as they often do, have an open primary system.

[BlueStreak]

"without evidence"? Holy Crap! What rock do you live under? And why do you make such generalizations---"call the Tea Party racists"?
Re-read my posts and the NAACP article to for that matter. (Assuming you read it the first time.) I seem to recall using the term "racists within the Tea Party". That's not painting the entire organization, that's pointing out that there are/were individuals within the organization who may have unsavory motivations. And in the NAACP article they mention numerous times that believe most Tea Partiers are not racists, but decent people with legitimate concerns for our nations future.

I'm not speaking in absolutes, here. I'm speaking of attitudes, motivations and shifting tides. If you had asked me who was more racist in say, the 1940s, you would have gotten an entirely different answer.

But, I will say this;

Find me one. Just one, KKK or Neo-Nazi member that votes Democratic or supports Obama. Good luck with that, Skippy. You might be successful, but I seriously doubt it.

David Duke? "....the (Democratic) party apparatus....was more successful at keeping him off the ticket.......then found a way onto the Republican ticket......". Thank you for making my point.

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Find me one. Just one, KKK or Neo-Nazi member that votes Democratic or supports Obama. Good luck with that, Skippy. You might be successful, but I seriously doubt it.

What a ridiculous proposition: find members of organizations that are notoriously racist who might support a black president. However Skippy, I noticed that you decided to ignore my post regarding current democrats with an checkered history on racism / anti -Semitism.

[BlueStreak]

I didn't "ignore" anything. I read it all, and it all seemed fairly accurate.

Did you read the entire NAACP article? Or did you "ignore" most or all of it?
It's only 71 pages.

(I'm an aggravatin' sumbitch, aint I?) Kinda like the guy in my avatar.
"Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

Dave

[finnbow]

Hell, NPR's firing of Juan Williams for his impolitic remark on O'Reilly is an example of how far liberals will go (too far perhaps) to purge racism and bigotry in their midst.

I think there's little argument that the GOP has created a more comfortable "home" for racists, homophobes and religious zealots than the Democrats have. To say otherwise is denying the obvious.

That said, racism appears to unfortunately be a part of the human condition. Another part of the human condition is the desire to associate with like-minded people. There are ample anecdotes to indicated that racism exists within the Democratic party. OTOH, there's also ample proof that xenophobia and racism are tactics systemmatically employed by the GOP (Southern Strategy, Willie Horton) to appeal to and attract those with a racist predisposition to their party.