Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bidenís Sister Souljah Moment That Wasnít
Townhall.com ^ | July 3, 2020 | Ken Blackwell

Posted on 07/03/2020 6:19:51 AM PDT by Kaslin

Sorry, Joe. It’s too little, too late.

At one of his strikingly rare press availabilities in Delaware, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden did his best to stage his own “Sister Souljah Moment.”

For those too young to remember, a hip-hop artist and political activist going by the moniker “Sister Souljah” handed a young Bill Clinton a political lifeline in 1992. As racially-charged riots raged in Los Angeles, incumbent President George H.W. Bush promptly deployed the National Guard and rode a wave of good press for getting the violence and looting under control. By contrast, Bill Clinton looked weak and perhaps even complicit in the disorder.

Then Sister Souljah gave Clinton an opening. “I mean, if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? … why not kill a white person?” she mused in a characteristically ridiculous Washington Post interview.

Clinton played it perfectly, condemning Sister Souljah and taking Jesse Jackson to task for inviting her to a conference. He managed to look responsible and independent without too harshly alienating the activist left, selecting something that clearly crossed the line and coming down hard on it. Clinton, of course, went on to win the ‘92 election.

Although rhetoric like Sister Souljah’s has gone from controversial to mundane in the years since Clinton won the ‘92 election, Biden is trying to replicate Clinton’s feat.

At a campaign event in Delaware, weeks after the widespread riots he refused to condemn, and in the midst of a movement committed to the wholesale destruction of American history, Joe Biden thinks he has finally found his Sister Souljah Moment. As “protesters” rampage around America, tearing down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, and with his own party openly talking about doing the same thing and calling a Fourth of July party at Mount Rushmore a “rally glorifying white supremacy,” Biden finally decided that perhaps he should say something.

Apparently, Biden doesn’t actually support tearing down the Founding Fathers. He might even be willing to preserve memorials to Christopher Columbus, the discoverer of the New World. But even then, he couldn’t bring himself to actually condemn the people yanking down statues. It’s all part of “responding to systemic racism in America,” you see. He could only bring himself far enough to blurt out, “The idea of comparing whether or not George Washington owned slaves or Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and somebody who was in rebellion, committing treason, trying to take down a union to keep slavery — I think there’s a distinction there.”

Thanks, Joe — what we really needed at this moment was a tepid, wishy-washy rebuke of the violent extremists waging open war against our nation’s history and fundamental values.

Unlike Clinton’s seemingly-heartfelt condemnation of Sister Souljah, Biden’s extraordinarily mild criticism of the extremists who are trying to tear America apart does nothing but reinforce Biden’s inability to rein in the anti-American insanity that is now the driving force within the Democratic Party.

Biden’s failed Sister Souljah moment will do nothing but reassure the anarchists that they may do as they please because no one in the Democratic Party is going to do much to stop them.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: joebiden; rioting; violence
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2020 6:19:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When describing Biden add patronizing to the terms creepy, corrupt and demented.


2 posted on 07/03/2020 6:29:50 AM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Clinton did not win because of the alleged “Sister Souljah” moment. He won because Ross Perot took 18% of the vote as an Independent.

Since Perot espoused policies far more Conservative than Liberal almost that entire 18% he received would have gone to Bush.


3 posted on 07/03/2020 6:31:06 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billyboy15

Clinton won because Read My Lips was a terrible POTUS. Perot only got votes because Read My Lips was a terrible POTUS.


4 posted on 07/03/2020 6:35:49 AM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The Final Solution: Slavery Is Back in Effect--Sister Souljah (1991)
5 posted on 07/03/2020 6:49:49 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lodi90

Yeah, Bush senior was a fool but still if it weren’t for Perot He would have won and handily running against Clinton.


6 posted on 07/03/2020 7:09:45 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: billyboy15
He won because Ross Perot took 18% of the vote as an Independent.

Because GHWB sucked.

7 posted on 07/03/2020 7:12:26 AM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator; lodi90

My comment was not to pass on the success or failure of the Bush 1 presidency but only on why he lost to Clinton.


8 posted on 07/03/2020 7:37:23 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: billyboy15

Almost all of the analysis I saw concluded Clinton would have won with or without Perot.


9 posted on 07/03/2020 7:38:39 AM PDT by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

So we can disagree. It was 28 yrs ago.


10 posted on 07/03/2020 8:31:37 AM PDT by billyboy15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Mr. Cellophane, ...is trying to replicate Clinton’s feat."
11 posted on 07/03/2020 9:35:21 AM PDT by yoe (Want to HELP the Slave Trade and Drug Cartels in USA? Vote for a democrat........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; All

I’m no doctor, but is it possible that SloJoe has Transient Global Amnesia? Transient global amnesia is anterograde and usually retrograde amnesia that begins suddenly and lasts up to 24 hours. What say you, UKE PUKE?

https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/function-and-dysfunction-of-the-cerebral-lobes/transient-global-amnesia

Putting the SloJoe puppet forward as a candidate is cruel.

Looting this republic for 45 years. Used EXTORTION to loot a foreign republic. UNCHECKED. UNACCOUNTABLE. Now wants his pig snout back in our trough to loot more. When he entered CONgre$$ the debt was well under 1 trillion dollars.

https://usdebtclock.org

Lots of sniffing, groping and oinking from this pig.

The most EVIL administration in the history of this fabulous republic. We’re still reeling from the stench of it. Right, Sniffer?

Report to the home Joek. Cali, NY, Penn, Joisy, Mich will do. Covid-19 awaits you, Dog-faced pony soldier, USELESS EATER. You can use your sniffer in Michigan. Gretchen WHitler might like it.

Does Biden have an island next to Epstein’s island? Hello, Sniffer/Groper.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiaKXZkORA8


12 posted on 07/03/2020 11:30:39 AM PDT by PGalt (Past Peak Civilization?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billyboy15; AuH2ORepublican; campaignPete R-CT; BillyBoy; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief

A favorite topic of mine we election nerds have discussed before. It would have been a closer race but I think Clinton still would have won narrowly.

Many Perot people would not have voted at all (two NAFTA candidates) and Clinton would have received an appreciable portion of those that did vote. My late grandaunt worked the phones for Perot, she was a democrat who wouldn’t have voted Bush to save her life. Recall Clinton did not run as a flaming lib.

In 1996 I think though that Dole would have gotten the large majority of the Perot vote, resulting in.....a close race that I think Clinton also would have eked out. PA would have been the key state for a narrow Dole EC win.


13 posted on 07/03/2020 3:59:20 PM PDT by Impy (Thug Lives Splatter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Impy; billyboy15; campaignPete R-CT; BillyBoy; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief

I looked at this issue very carefully around 20 years ago (boy does time fly). If we redistributed the 1992 Perot vote among Bush, Clinton, other and stayed home as I think would be the likeliest way in each state (e.g., Perot supporters in NC would be likelier to vote for Bush over Clinton than would Perot supporters in MA), my analysis yielded an almost certain pickup by Bush of GA, MT, CO, NV, WI, OH, NH, NJ (yes, New Jersey) and KY if Perot had not reentered the race after dropping out the first time and thus was not on the ballot. That would have given Bush 255 EVs, 15 short of victory. There would be an additional 19 EVs that would be very closely contested: CT (8), IA (7) and ME (4). Had Bush won CT (very possible) and IA (a bit more doubtful), he would have been reelected with exactly 270 EVs; ME’s 4 EVs would not be enough to get Bush to 270 if he didn’t also win the 15 combined EVs from IA and CT. Winning one of the ME CDs would have given Bush a cushion, but please note that the two ME CDs voted almost exactly the same back then (it was prior to GOP gains in rural areas and Democrat gains in suburban areas), so the likeliest result would have been Clinton or Bush winning all four EVs from ME.

Had Bush won reelection in 1992, two things would be likely: The GOP would not pick up the House and Senate in 1994, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer would not have replaced Byron White and Harry Blackmun in the Supreme Court. Had White and Blackmun retired during such 4-year period (which may not have been the case for Blackmun, who would have tried to hold on even after turning 87), Bush’s nominees would have been substantially better than the two reflexive leftists that Clinton nominated. Even if one of the two nominees was another Souter(which would have been unlikely to happen again, although certainly another Kennedy or Roberts could have slipped in), the net gain from Thomas II and Souter II vs. Ginsburg and Breyer would have been a huge boon to proper constitutional interpretation. With even one conservative justice in those two seats, Roberts’s idiotic “it’s a tax” theory would be but a dissent to a Scalia Opinion of the Court striking down Obamacare (if Roberts even floated such theory; I think that he would have voted to strike down Obamacare if there were five other justices already striking it down), and Kennedy would not have four liberals to join his pro-sodomy and gay-marriage opinions.

In 1996, Dole likely would have won almost all of the 1996 Perot voters (almost all of whom had voted GOP in 1994 and would vote GOP in 1996 congressional elections) that didn’t decide to stay at home if Perot dropped out. Dole almost certainly would have picked up KY, TN, FL, NV, AZ, MO and OH to reach 247 EVs, which would be close but no cigar. As Impy mentioned, Dole’s only hope of victory would have been to carry PA, which voted Clinton 49.17%, Dole 39.97% and Perot 9.56%. Dole would have to net over 96% of the Perot vote in PA to carry the state, which would be a bridge too far. Of course, had Perot dropped out early or not run at all in 1996, the presidential campaign would have been different and maybe Dole would have gotten higher turnout in GOP areas or held on to more voters in the Philly suburbs, so we can’t know for sure how the election would have turned out. But if I had to bet, my money would be on a narrow Clinton victory in PA to clinch his reelection.


14 posted on 07/04/2020 8:13:49 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT

” (yes, New Jersey)”

NJ was of course was very close in 1992, had just elected a GOP state leg, and at the time hadn’t voted rat since 1964 and was a viewed as a must win for the GOP, only beginning in 1996 did it begin it’s abyss of not being competitive in Presidential elections (with W Bush’s 2004 performance the only respectable finish). In fact, hmm last GOP before W to win without New Jersey was Benjamin Harrison I think. That’s 112 years.

A shame, CNN exit poll showed Trump with 54% of NJ whites (no more capitalization!).

I saw on old “McLaughlin Group” on you tube with Fred Barnes saying Clinton should pick Bradley as his running mate. Of the bums they mentioned (Gore not among them), he was the only one that made sense to me.

“Had Bush won reelection in 1992, two things would be likely: The GOP would not pick up the House and Senate in 1994,”

Certainly not. So....not until the midterm of the next rat President? Now I’m thinking of who the 96 race would have been between, I don’t know if Dan Q could have done it, probably Dole vs...... a reelected Cuomo? Moonbeam Brown?


15 posted on 07/05/2020 1:25:05 AM PDT by Impy (Thug Lives Splatter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Impy; BillyBoy; LS; NFHale; GOPsterinMA; campaignPete R-CT; AuH2ORepublican; Clemenza; SunkenCiv; ..

Almost certainly would’ve been Quayle had he been reelected as VP in 1992. Quayle probably would’ve picked Dole as an “elder statesman” to balance the ticket.

Depending on how close ‘92 was, had Bubba the Rapist lost, it’s almost a given he’d have run again, but would’ve been urged to pick someone else for VP (hence Moonbeam or Saint Mario).

Had Bush, Sr. been reelected, ‘94 could’ve been the total reverse. A frightening array of scum and villainy could’ve won countless seats in Congress and the Governorships. My Senator Sasser would’ve assumed the role of Majority Leader and Foley would’ve continued as Speaker. Sickening thought. With an open Governorship, Manbearpig might’ve run and won and used it as an alternative stepping-stool to the Presidency for 1996 or 2000.


16 posted on 07/05/2020 2:13:01 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Dear Mr. Kotter, #Epsteindidntkillhimself - Signed, Epstein's Mother)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Impy

If New Yorkers, behind William Marcy, had come to their senses in 1852, whom would they have supported at the convention? To oppose Pierce and the Slave Power

Meanwhile, slave-supporting Pierce, Marcy, & Lewis are just 3 northern Democratics with various statues and institutions named after them. They didn’t burn it all down yet?


17 posted on 07/05/2020 7:36:23 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (Committee to Re-Elect the President ( CREEP ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Impy; Galactic Overlord-In-Chief; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; campaignPete R-CT

True, before George W. Bush’s election in 2000, the last Republican to have been elected president without carrying NJ was Benjamin Harrison in 1888. But before 2000, no Republican had ever been elected president without carrying IL. (BTW, save for the 1948 election in which Dewey carried NJ but had IL stolen by Truman—a taste of what would happen in 1960, when Kennedy stole both IL and NJ from Nixon—NJ and IL have voted the same way in every presidential election starting with Grover Cleveland in 1892; that’s 31 of the last 32 elections, and counting!) The reason why I wrote “(yes, New Jersey)” was not because it would have been shocking in 1992 for Bush to have carried the state, but because it seems strange to a reader today to comprehend how a mere 28 years ago a one-on-one race between Bush and Clinton could have resulted in Bush carrying NJ and maybe also CT but Clinton carrying MO, TN and LA.


18 posted on 07/05/2020 8:03:39 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

CT has a strong anti-Southern bigotry. Jimmy Carter and Clinton struggled here in primaries and generals. But I don’t think NJ has the same attitudes


19 posted on 07/05/2020 8:25:08 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (Committee to Re-Elect the President ( CREEP ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Apparently, Biden doesn’t actually support tearing down the Founding Fathers. He might even be willing to preserve memorials to Christopher Columbus, the discoverer of the New World. But even then, he couldn’t bring himself to actually condemn the people yanking down statues. It’s all part of “responding to systemic racism in America,” you see. He could only bring himself far enough to blurt out, “The idea of comparing whether or not George Washington owned slaves or Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and somebody who was in rebellion, committing treason, trying to take down a union to keep slavery — I think there’s a distinction there.”
It's adorable that he claims to think.
Note: this topic is from 06/03/2020. Thanks kevcol.
cdfvxbvcvbcvbcv

20 posted on 07/05/2020 8:51:45 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson